I began this 3-part blog series (which I interrupted twice…sorry) with a few examples of ways in which the Scriptures have been misinterpreted and misused by professing Christians today. In response to these examples (none of which were made up), I posed this question—one which I have wrestled with often—Who has the authority to say, “The Bible says…”?
It’s a big question—Who holds the authority of biblical interpretation?—and I made an attempt to trace a bit of the history of the Bible in order to shed some light on why I have come to the following conclusion: It is the Church, throughout time and space—the entire collective body of Christ’s followers—who alone has the authority to interpret the meaning of Scripture.
So the question to ask, then, in this final portion of the blog series is, So what?
So what if someone comes to you and tells you that the Greek words translated as “homosexual(s)” in the New Testament did not refer to the relationship shared in ancient Roman culture between two consenting male adults, but rather referred to what we would call “rape” or “child molestation” today? And what if from this exegetical procedure they interpret the Scriptures to not speak against the relationships shared by consenting gay partners?
Well, it seems to me that at this point you could take one of two options:
1) You could try to muster up all the references, arguments, explanations, and PowerPoint presentations on the meaning of the Greek words translated as “homosexual” in the NT, and then try to duke it out between your opponent (who has already placed you on his turf) [this is the popular evangelical route these days, which produces a lot of sales for people who know Greek and stuff like that]; OR…
2) You could simply respond, “that’s not what the Church teaches,” and be done with it.
Of course this person is not going to accept your answer if you opt for the second option, but then again no one was ever brought to any deep truth through exegetical arguments anyway; “it is the kindness of God that leads men to repentance.”
Nevertheless, the second option is the one I would encourage you to employ. While I know it chafes against everything you’ve been taught as a member of a democratic society, that assumes that each individual voice is equally as pertinent as the next; not to mention everything you’ve been taught as a Protestant, believing that the texts of the Bible can be properly interpreted by any rational human being—nevertheless I would hope that I’ve begun to illustrate how if we take the interpretive authority of the Bible away from the Church we open ourselves up to interpretive chaos and/or irrelevance. A recent commenter on a previous blog post expressed her fear of relativistic readings of Scripture; this is exactly what taking the Bible out of individual exegetes’ hands and putting it back in the hands of the Church guards against.
So how do we practically do this, especially in a society where access to the Bible is nearly limitless and literacy is 95+% (the consequence being that anyone can pick up and read the Bible nearly as often as they’d like)? Here’s what I think the natural conclusion is…
Every time any individual picks up the Bible and says, “I think this is what this means…”, that individual must subject that interpretation to their local church’s understanding of the Scripture. And that local congregation of believers better be sure that they also are subjecting their understanding of the Scriptures to dialogue with the regional, denominational, and global members of the Church. Not only that, but even the global Church today needs to remember the saints of past days—that “great cloud of witnesses” that have gone before us—and submit our understanding of the Scriptures to conversation with their understandings. In the end what we have is the whole Church—throughout time and space—participating in the process of “binding and loosing” the Scriptures, which is what Christ Himself gave us the authority to do.
It is in the midst of this dialogue, this ongoing conversation, this community that we find the meaning of the Scriptures.
So am I asking us evangelicals and other free-thinking, democratically-minded Protestant Americans to go back to the “Dark Ages” and submit to an authoritarian regime of clerics and popes for our understanding of Scripture? No…well…no.
I am asking that we not divorce the Bible from the Church. We must be in conversation with the WHOLE CHURCH in order to understand the Scriptures. It is conversation and consensus within the Church that brought the Bible to its final, canonical form; and it will be conversation and consensus within the Church that will bring us to be able to understand the words of God today. The nature of the Scriptures is that they are communal; separate the Bible from the community of believers, and you cease to understand it fully. Put the Bible back into the center of the dialogue with all believers—throughout time and space—and you will most certainly hear the voice of God speaking through its pages.
Thank you to those who waded through 3 very lengthy posts to track this blog-series. Please continue to participate in the dialogue—let’s be the Church!
Ian I would have to add that First, one should pray and ask for the Lord's direction. Ask and rely on the Holy Spirit for clear interpretation. It is good to consult with spiritually mature people for their point of view regarding scripture, but ultimately the Church is still made up of fallable people, each with his or her own perspective. One should NEVER rely solely on their pastor's interpretation, this is one problem I have with certain denominations and churches, the congregation is taught that they aren't "educated" enough to understand the scripture. What a bunch of hogwash...each of us should pray before reading scripture and consulting with wise believers can give one clearer understanding.
ReplyDeletePrayer should absolutely be a part of this process of interpretation! Thank you for pointing that out. I certainly meant implicitly that in the process of "conversation and consensus" prayer (i.e. conversation with God) would be a necessary part of this. I'm so glad that you made this explicit, though.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would have to say that ultimately I do not agree with your train of thought: namely, that the individual is the sort of "focal point" of interpretation, and they only need to seek the advice of "mature believers" to tweak or affirm what they learn ON THEIR OWN from the Holy Spirit. I believe that the CHURCH is the focal point of interpretation. And the Church IS the Church because of the communal indwelling of the Holy Spirit; therefore what the Spirit is doing and has done, how he has spoken and does speak, in the Church will not contradict what he says to the individual in private study or meditation. If it does, it is not the Church that needs correction, but the individual.
One other point: this all depends on an accurate definition of the Church, and I have tried to show that the Church is "the collective body of believers, stretched out throughout all time and space." (Maybe I'll try to delve into ecclesiology in my next post in order to elaborate on what I mean.) So I am not advocating that any single pastor or local congregation or denomination have a monopoly on interpretation. But if the pastor, the congregation and the denomination are truly representatives of this collective body of believers, then their communal voice does indeed trump the individual voice of any student of Scripture, no matter how educated they may or may not be--myself included. I must listen to how the Church collectively understands Scripture.
Interesting, one of the things I credit the Roman Catholic church for is their sense of communal identity. This of course coming from their rigid conformity to certain structures and doctrines. I am not in favor of the outcome, obviously from a Protestant standpoint meaning the sinfulness of man, but we need to investigate the "spirit" in which these things were put in place. I like your clarification of church, Ian, the idea that we are looking through a lens that extends two thousand years. What is it that we are so scaried of in the Catholic tradition, misuse or the lost of individuality? I believe their is strength in allowing individuality to flow from a filter, mainly the Holy Spirit. But then again are we not just back at the beginning of this conversation of who has the say so? I am not being pessimistic. I think we can find clarity not only in theory but also in practice. The direction is not who holds the authority, but who is humble enough to submit to some sort of authority, i.e. the local church at least. We need to be communities of faith, hope, and love. We have faith in God's nature, Son, and story. We have hope of transformation in this life, holiness defined so, the in-breaking Kingdom of God. And we are a people of love, that is ones who will submit to each other, serve each other with a tenacity unmatched in the world surrounding us, even romantic love.
ReplyDeleteNate, I REALLY like what you said about our need for humility: "The direction is not who holds the authority, but who is humble enough to submit to some sort of authority, i.e. the local church at least." That is something that really ought to be stressed in our highly individualized--and let's face it, self-worshiping--culture. Thanks for commenting, dude!
ReplyDeleteIan, with regard to the authority of scripture I agree with your premise that the whole of the Church should be our source for understanding. Two questions? Is the Church synonumous with the Body of Christ? And, the Christian Bible encompasses the Hebrew Bible as well. What role do you see the nation of Israel and Jewish History playing in our understanding of the meaning of the Word?
ReplyDeleteHey dad, I've been crunching on your question and here's what I think: (1) The "Body of Christ" is one of the best biblical IMAGES of what the Church is--but as an IMAGE and not the full REALITY it has its limits. Obviously, we believe that Christ's body in a very literal sense is with him in heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father. This is one of the greatest overlooked truths of our faith--there's already a glorified, human body in heaven: Jesus' body! While the rest of us wait for the general resurrection, the "first fruits of the resurrection" have already been taken into heaven. However, there is still a very real--I think, sacramental--sense that the Church IS the Body of Christ. We also need images like the "Bride of Christ" to help us understand the FULL REALITY of the Church, though.
ReplyDelete(2) As for the relationship between the Church and the nation of Israel and Israel's history: I believe that our story as the Church is absolutely non-understandable [is that a word?] without the story of ancient Israel. This is what the early church leaders recognized right away: the gospel and the Incarnation--even the very existence of the Church--do not make sense without the background that the story of Israel, as contained in the Hebrew Bible, presents. Jesus is the MESSIAH, and we cannot fully understand this fact apart from the story of Israel. However, Israel has always only ever referred to "those who wrestle with God"--or his chosen people--NOT A SPECIFIC RACE OF PEOPLE. Paul says that we are sons of Abraham because of our FAITH in the PROMISE--namely, Christ--not because of circumcision (an ethnic distinguishing mark). I think the whole New Testament testifies to the profound truth that the Church is the TRUE/RESTORED Israel. Now, obviously even the great apostle Paul wrestles with what this means for the Jewish people (in Rom. 9-11); however, we cannot neglect the entire witness of the NT that the Church is the TRUE/RESTORED Israel. Anytime a letter in the NT is addressed to "the saints" or "the elect" or "the chosen" this truth is evidenced, because these titles were reserved SOLELY for ancient Israel prior to the emergence of the Church. So, in summary, I believe that the NT clearly says that it is the Church that is the TRUE ISRAEL--but that there is still some ambiguity even in the NT as to what EXACTLY this means for the Jewish people. One thing is clear though--there is no salvation apart from Christ, even for the Jews.