Who has the authority to say, “The Bible says…”? (Part 2: The Protestant Reformation and the Myth of “Sola Scriptura!”)

I belatedly return to the discussion I began two blogs ago concerning biblical interpretation. This will be “Part 2” of a three-part blog, which attempts to give some clue as to “Who has the authority to say, ‘The Bible says…’?”.

In “Part 1”, I ended a basic review of the early stages of the compilation of the Bible by making this statement: “The reason the 66 books we have compiled today are considered Scripture—inspired words of God, the Bible—is that the Church, guided collectively—over time and space—by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to call them Scripture. […] When we take the Bible—any part of it—out of that context, we are sure to miss the mark interpretively.” In saying this, I was anticipating this second installment of the discussion, which will primarily concern how the Protestant Reformation affected our understanding of the proper context for reading and interpreting the Scriptures.

(As a disclaimer, I must graciously acknowledge that I have gleaned much of my knowledge of this section of Church history and its effects on biblical interpretation from an Olivet professor who did his doctoral dissertation on the Protestant Reformation.)

So, as previously discussed (in “Part 1”), the Bible is finally canonized after 300+ years of consensus amongst the Church, and by about 400 A.D. the Bible, as we know it, is well established. Interpretation of these Scriptures, then, is seen as the prerogative of the Church hierarchy—the bishops, priests, and other clergy. This fact of interpretive authority is rarely questioned for 1000 years—save for a few dissenters here and there, like Wycliffe and Huss—primarily because there is no real power at this time amongst the laity of the Church with which to challenge the hierarchy. (Scholars, please forgive my oversimplification.) The “Middle Ages” (of Europe, at least) as they become known are dominated by the Church, which is in a way the glue that holds European culture and society together after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Then, around 1500, some rapid changes begin occurring. Not only changes in the Church—with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformers’ words and deeds—but changes in society at large. The printing press, international political restructuring, and the waning power of the papacy (the pope) are a few of the factors that make the time ripe for revolution.

It is funny to me that Luther’s “95 Theses”, nailed to the door of the church at Wittenberg, sparked the fire that they did, because they were actually Luther’s second attempt at raising critical questions about the Church; his so-called “97 Theses”, which he wrote prior to his “95”, were basically ignored by his colleagues. Nevertheless, we need not go into a long history of the origins of the Reformation itself: I would imagine most of you are familiar with the tale of how Luther’s “95 Theses” shook the foundations of the Church, so to speak (if you're not familiar, let’s face it, Wikipedia is a great summary tool).

There is a very popular myth amongst Protestants which says that the issue at stake during the Reformation was biblical authority. It is believed that the famous Protestant battle-cry “sola scriptura!” was pitted against the biblically-lax “Catholics” who had let “tradition” trump the Bible. Let me be exceedingly clear on this, because I think it of the utmost importance to how we read the Bible even today: the issue at stake during the Reformation was not biblical authority, it was authority of interpretation. The dilemma posed by the Reformers (whether they recognized it or not) was not “Is the Bible authoritative?” The dilemma was “Who has the authority to interpret the Bible? Who has the right to say, ‘The Bible says…’?” The “Catholic Church” had bound up the authority of interpretation in the hierarchy of the Church, particularly in the pope. (And let’s be honest, during Luther’s time, the popes were usually nothing more than greedy, petty, land-holding princes.) The Reformers wanted to say that the Bible was self-interpreting; in other words, the authority of interpreting the Bible lay in the Bible itself.

No one can fault Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other reformers of the time for their desire to see the Church recapture her purity and righteousness: once again, the Church at the time was literally telling people that their salvation depended on things like the purchase of indulgence certificates. However, the assumption of the Reformers—that the Bible was self-interpreting—must simply be called what it is: a mistake… a mistake that still bears fruit today in Protestant circles. Why was it a mistake? Because it did exactly what I’ve already mentioned should never be done with the Bible: it takes the issue of interpretation out of the context of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit.

It was the sincere belief of the Reformers that any rational person would read the Bible and come to the same interpretations as any other rational person. It seems this assumption is still held today. Many Christians (especially of the Reformed tradition, it seems to me) continue to hold to this very modern, rationalistic, individualistic notion of the interpretation of Scripture—namely, that the Bible’s meaning is self-evident to anyone with the mind to understand its meaning.

But let’s face it: the Bible is not interpreted the same way by all individuals. The Church prior to the Reformation guarded against the multitude of conflicting interpretations by embedding the authority to interpret Scripture in the Church hierarchy. The Reformers freed this authority from the hierarchy and attempted to hand it to the individual. This emphasis on the individual’s authority to interpret Scripture is increased in our highly individualistic, democratic societies, of which America is the pinnacle.

And this brings us back around to the illustrations I mentioned in “Part 1.” We have individuals who claim all sorts of interpretations concerning the Scripture which most of us would consider “unbiblical.” But if we truly believe the Reformers’ claim—namely that the Scriptures are self-evident, self-interpreting, and that rational individuals will agree upon its meaning—then how do we even begin to raise objections against another individuals’ interpretations of Scripture? On what grounds do we have the right to say that they do not understand the Bible correctly, since we believe that the authority to interpret the self-evident Scriptures resides with the individual?

I maintain that the Scriptures cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the guidance of the Church as a whole—the entire community of Christ’s disciples, spread out over both time and space. We need to return the authority of interpretation to the Church, rescuing it from the corruption of individualism. This means that we American Evangelicals especially need to give heed to the way the Scripture has been understood by others from the past and others from around our world today. We must hear the whole Church as best as possible in this. We cannot continue to pretend that our little group of evangelicals, or even ourselves as individuals, can rightly understand the Scriptures apart from the community of faith. And we must respond to those who misinterpret the Bible not with clever "evidence"-based exegesis, or with other arguments that beg the question of interpretive authority, but with the simple response: "this is not what the Church teaches, therefore it is not what the Scriptures mean."

The Bible is not self-evident or self-interpreting. It must be the book of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Without this context, I reiterate, we cannot rightly understand what Scripture has to say.

Interlude: The Incarnation, the Bible, and the Qur'an

I wanted to just write a brief blog in response to a comment my father-in-law, Pastor Mark Green, wrote to the previous blog entry about the history of the Bible. He was saying that a couple of his churchmen have raised objection to what authority Scripture can really hold since it was, in fact, "written by men."

In response to this, first I would say what I have already alluded to in my previous blog concerning the authority of Scripture: I believe that the authority of Scripture is derived primarily from its use in the church, making the issue of "who wrote it?" kind of secondary. To paraphrase one of the great theologians of our time, Stanley Hauerwas, "the meaning of the Scriptures cannot be separated from the task of discipleship."

I have come to appreciate the fact that the Christian Scriptures were written by humans much more since my semester abroad in Egypt, where we studied the Qur'an and Muslim theology to some extent--from Muslim professors nonetheless. In Islam you have a Holy Book that comes straight out of the mouth of God--dictated by the archangel, Gabriel, to the Prophet in his isolation. The final compilation of the Qur'an is said to have take place before the end of the Prophet's life. Not only is the text held to be linguistically and structurally flawless, it must also be read in its original 6th c. Arabic in order to be truly Scripture. (Look at any English Qur'an at Barnes & Noble or elsewhere and you'll see that it's called an "interpretation" not a "translation" of the Qur'an.)

On the other hand, the Christian Scriptures were, as has been observed, "written by men" (though, of course, we would also profess, by faith, that they were inspired by God, though not in the same way that Muslims claim the Qur'an was). Over literally 1,000+ years, scores of individual authors (and probably later editors, compilers, redactors, religious scribal schools, and even later, churches) brought together all the books of the Bible. Since the time when the canonization of the Bible was finished (which is where we ended our last discussion), the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words of the Christian Holy Book have been translated into hundreds of other languages and dialects, with the express belief that they are not significantly tainted by this translation process.

Well...I could go on, but I told you I'd keep this brief, and I want to get back to the train of thought I began with the last blog. But let me say this one last thing....

Have you ever considered the fact that Jesus never wrote a single thing, at least not anything that has appeared in Scripture (and certainly anything he wrote would have been)? The God of Islam saw how Jews and Christians had gradually corrupted the texts he had given them, and thus eliminated all human error from the equation with the Qur'an by dictating its Arabic syllables verbatim to the Prophet. The Christian God--become Man, in Christ--doesn't even bother writing a single thing while on earth, as far as we can tell. Just consider it!

I think the Miracle of the Incarnation Itself gives us a clue as to why God chose frail, faulty, unpolished human beings to compose His Scriptures. In the Incarnation, we see the perfect melding together of the human and the divine; everything that the Temple in Jerusalem was supposed to be--a midpoint between heaven and earth--Jesus fulfills and surpasses a hundred times over. And it's through this melding of human and divine that God brings freedom and salvation to all mankind.

And Scripture is this melding of the words of God and men, which bring the message of the good news of freedom and salvation in Christ to all mankind. God doesn't seem to mind that our biblical writers did not know about our modern science, or the evolutionary theory, or even (some of them) about the Trinity before writing. He doesn't seem to mind either that we've translated these ancient Greek and Hebrew words into weird, modern European languages like American English. He doesn't seem to mind even if nerds like me critically study the texts of the Bible.

If we use the Incarnation as a sort of lens, we see that the Bible is totally God uniting humanity with himself--just as Jesus was God and humanity united perfectly into one person--for the purpose of bringing good news to all people. The beauty of the fact that "men wrote the Scriptures" is that...well...God saw fit to invite men to write the Scriptures! How awesome is that privilege!

Who has the authority to say, “The Bible says…”? (Part 1: A Little History Lesson)

A man in an adulterous relationship, who has left his wife and children, comes to church on Sunday with his new girlfriend. He tells the pastor, “The Bible says that God wants me to be happy.”

A Yale scholar writes an article explaining how the terms translated as “homosexual(s)” in the New Testament are faulty translations, and that modern biblical criticism has proven that the NT writings do not in fact speak against this sort of sexuality.

A couple tells their pastor that they’re concerned that some of the young men in the congregation are falling away from their faith because their hair has grown too long, and Paul expressly forbids this in his letter to Timothy.

A website advertises, “It’s a sin to eat meat, because Jesus was a vegetarian!”

Your grandmother tells you that it’s a sin to drink alcohol, and that Jesus drank “unfermented” wine (he drank what, grandma?) at the Last Supper.

Have you ever noticed how many millions of interpretations—many of them incredible—there are concerning the Scriptures? If you’re a part of the American Evangelical crew you know I’m not making these stories up.

The question of the authority of interpretation is one that I have been wrestling with for a long while now, and almost constantly: Who determines who gets to say, “The Bible says…”?

I think I’m beginning to see a little light at the end of the tunnel on this issue, and I want to open up the dialogue on the issue outside just the walls of the university. However, I’ve found it very difficult to just start talking about the issue of biblical interpretation without first laying some of the historical groundwork concerning the formation of the Bible itself. So, there are a few things we should realize about this collection of texts we call “The Bible” before we proceed with the conversation….

A question I enjoy (probably to an annoying extent) asking people from time to time is this: Did you know that the Bible did not come down on a string from heaven, leather-bound, in KJV or NIV edition?

Obviously, it’s a sarcastic and rhetorical question—of course it didn’t come to us that way. OK, if not that way, then how did we come to have this book called “The Bible”?

In two words, the answer would be: gradual consensus. The Church, as a whole—spread over 300+ years, in all places of the known world—gradually came to agree that some of the many letters and gospel accounts floating around during the early years of the faith should be considered, not just edifying works by fellow believers, but “Scripture”—words inspired by God Himself. This consensus was generally governed by four criteria:

1) Apostolicity—if a work was tied in a significant way to one of the original Apostles, it was a good candidate for being considered Scripture.
2) Orthodoxy—the Church had to approve of what was taught in the text for it to be considered for canonization.
3) Universality—if the text was well-known and approved by Christians all over the known world, this was also a big plus for its potential canonization.
4) Liturgical use—the question of which texts churches were already using in their worship was a huge contributing factor to the question of whether or not a given gospel account or letter should be considered Scripture.

The Reader’s Digest version of the process of this gradual consensus goes something like this:

The Old Testament (OT) or Hebrew Bible (HB) is easy: the OT/HB was canonized--officially standardized--by the religious leaders of Israel nearly 300 years before Christ. After Christ’s resurrection, when the Church realized that Its story was inextricably intertwined with the history of the people called “Israel,” the OT/HB was the first to be acknowledged as a part of what would be considered Christian Scripture. In fact, very little changed in this regard for the early Christians, since most of them were Jews and they already considered the HB to be inspired Scripture anyway.

Secondly, very early on in this process Paul’s writings came to gain the same status as the HB—a fact that is attested to in 2 Peter 3:16, where the author compares Paul’s letters to “other Scriptures.”

Following most of Paul’s letters, the four Gospels we have in our Bibles today were recognized as Scripture.

After Paul’s letters and the four gospel accounts, the so-called “Catholic Epistles” (James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2&3 John, and Jude) came to be accepted as Scripture.

Hebrews and Revelation had a harder go at acceptance by the general Church, but they too were eventually brought into this consensus.

It was not until 367 A.D.—in Bishop Athanasius’ 39th Easter Letter—that the 27 books we now call the “New Testament” were exclusively acknowledged as those which the whole Church ought to consider “Scripture.” And even Athanasius’ Letter was nothing like a hard-and-fast decision by a general council; nevertheless, these 27 books did finally come to be recognized again and again by councils and other ecumenical decisions to follow as the books that composed the “New Testament,” which was added to the Hebrew Bible—the “Old Testament”—to one day give form to that leather-bound, KJV or NIV (or NASB, or whatever…) Holy Bible we can so easily access today.

So, as I wrap up the first part of this discussion, you might ask me: “What’s the point of this little history lesson?” The point is to remind us—especially us modern, Protestant, Americans, who seem to so easily forget (or who, perhaps, simply are ignorant of)—why, in the first place, we even have a Bible to appeal to for our myriad of (bad and good) interpretations today. The reason the 66 books we have compiled today are considered Scripture—inspired words of God, the Bible—is that the Church, guided collectively—over time and space—by the Holy Spirit, saw fit to call them Scripture.

In fact, the fifteenth chapter of Acts gives us a good idea of how this decision making worked: the Jerusalem Council, addressing the Church at large concerning the issue of Gentiles’ (you and me!) acceptance into this fledgling faith—self-proclaimed as “The Way”—wrote, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….” (v.28)

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to the Church (capital ‘C’) to give us the Bible. When we take the Bible—any part of it—out of that context, we are sure to miss the mark interpretively. But more on that very important consequence to come….

On how “relevant” bibles are making the bible irrelevant…

So I’ve recently come across a couple of “specialty” Bibles that have both caught my eye (kind of like a fishhook might do)…

Click HERE to Check it Out

Product Description (from Amazon.com)

THE ONE BIBLE THAT SHOWS HOW 'A LIGHT FROM ABOVE' SHAPED OUR NATION. Never has a version of the Bible targeted the spiritual needs of those who love our country more than The American Patriot's Bible. This extremely unique Bible shows how the history of the United States connects the people and events of the Bible to our lives in a modern world. The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible and includes a beautiful full-color family record section, memorable images from our nation's history and hundreds of enlightening articles which complement the New King James Version Bible text.

Click HERE to Check it Out

Product Description (from Amazon.com)

Learn how to show the absurdity of evolution.

Study how to share your faith with your family or at your workplace. Learn how to witness to an atheist. See from Scripture how to prove God’s existence without the use of faith. Discover how to prove the authenticity of the Bible through prophecy. See how the Bible is full of eye-opening scientific and medical facts. Read fascinating quotes from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Sir Issac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Stephen Hawking, and many other well-known scientists. Read the fearful last words of famous people who died without the Savior. Learn how to refute the "contradictions" in the Bible. Study how to speak with a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Buddhist, a Hindu and a Moslem. Find out why the Dead Sea Scrolls are relevant to the Bible. Read incredible quotes about the Bible from presidents and other famous people. Discover how to answer questions such as Where did Cain get his wife? Why is there suffering? Why did the dinosaur disappear?…and many more.

The Way of the Master is a ministry of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, designed to teach Christians how to share their faith simply, effectively, biblically…the way Jesus did.

I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the agendas that each of these “specialty” Bibles tout. Some believe that “this great nation” (isn’t that how it’s almost always said?) has always been a “Christian nation.” Others believe that they must “prove” scientifically (ironic, no?) that the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis 1 is a historically and scientifically verifiable account, not just a theological account; or that the obvious contradictions in wording at different points in some biblical texts can be rectified by jumping through several rational and linguistic hoops. I mean, isn’t this obviously what both of these bibles are about—namely, proposing specific agendas (agendas which are, in fact, not agreed upon by all evangelicals, let alone by the Church at large) which Scripture is then only called upon as a vehicle of “evidence” for?

This upsets me for two reasons: First, as I’ve already alluded to, the agendas that each of these Bibles tout are specific to a relatively small group (when considering the whole of the Church in time, space and number) of Christians, specifically of the American evangelical type. Let’s ask ourselves: is an “American Patriot’s Bible” really in any way pertinent to lives of the many Christians suffering from unending war and violence in Darfur? Or even less dramatic, how are our many Christians scientists, throughout the world, who believe there is some connection point between the Creation story and evolutionary development supposed to feel about someone handing them the “Evidence Bible: learn how to show the absurdity of evolution”? And maybe a bit more personally, how are my Muslim friends supposed to feel about me revealing to them that I, in fact, have learned how to convert them rationally, without even any recourse to faith or anything else that cannot be “proven”? No my friends, these Bibles are, in my opinion, idolatrous because they take a specific agenda and make Scripture—which is, remember, the word(s) of God—subservient to that agenda. “Proof text” methods almost always do this.

But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these Bibles upset me because, as far as I can tell, they actually create the very opposite effect desired of their publishers: these Bibles are supposed to make the narrative of Scripture seem more relevant to specific audiences to whom they are marketed (and let’s face it—this is, from the publishers’ perspectives, all about marketing in the end), and I believe they would, in fact, eventually lead to the complete irrelevance of Scripture. Why do I say that? Well, quite simply put, if you don’t buy into the specific agenda of the specialty Bible being marketed, you aren’t very likely to read it. And my generation increasingly hates…let me put it more clearly…they stinkin’ looooathe marketed religion, which is what these Bibles are examples of. So if you get to a point where Bibles like these are the mainstream of published bibles, then you’re left with two alternative groups: those who buy into the specific agenda(s) of the bible(s) they purchase, and those who won’t even touch any of them. On the one hand you have Bibles dividing Christians into pet-agendas, and on the other you have people that don’t even want to touch a Bible: not a good scenario.

We need to remember that what makes the Scriptures relevant is not a specifically marketed agenda: it’s the witness of the Church, through the Holy Spirit, as we behave as the body of Christ. If we, as the Church, indwell the Scripture narrative, and allow it to form us even more into the body of Christ, it will be our witness to the world—through our lives, words and deeds—that makes the Scriptures relevant to the world in which we live…not some temporary agenda of a “special interest group.”

Although, I have to admit, I really would enjoy listening to the voice of Darth Vader read the Sermon on the Mount to me….

Click HERE to Check it Out