Sola Scriptura, Scriptura Sola…Maybe Not

In writing something like this I think I must begin by saying that the aim of this writing is not to make the claim that the Holy Scriptures are not authoritative, not truth, or no longer relative. I would ask that this writing be read in its entirety before it be judged, upon which feel free to judge it as critically as you like.

Sola scriptura, scriptura sola (Only the Scriptures and the Scriptures only) is a creation of the reformation. It is a reaction to what the Catholic Church was/had become. Indeed me must recognize that prior to the 15^th century and the invention of the printing press Sola scriptura was not a possibility because having individual access the scriptures was not possible. It is also important to note that even the early reformers saw problems with sola scriptura, scriptura sola which is why so quickly after its creation it was changed to sola scriptura and the sainthood of all believers. When this change took place it invited tradition and, I believe, experience into the equation.

As someone who came out of the Wesleyan tradition, my roots teach that the authority of scripture is married to reason, experience and tradition (The Wesleyan Quadrilateral). This is not only saying that church tradition, personal experience and reason are valid components of the Christian faith, but I argue that it also recognizes the effect that our understanding of church tradition, our experiences and our reason has on our understanding of the sacred text. Strong arguments have been made for the impossibility of an individual to "just read the bible." What I mean by this is that each individual brings something with her/him as they enter the text. To put it another way, if I had 5 people read a passage from the bible, odds are there will be 3 (or more) variations on the meaning of that text.

For those of you who are uncomfortable with this I ask you when is the last time you buried your poop in the back yard or perhaps attempted to send you wife away into the woods until she was done with her period. You dismiss the scriptural instruction because church tradition, your reason and personal experience all tell you that it is no longer necessary for God's people to follow these biblical instructions. Even those people I hear argue that we must take all of scripture literally and that every word of text is God's breathed have allowed those three factors to "trump" these portions of text.

Here also I add Karl Barth's weigh in on the word of God. For Barth, Scripture is one of three forms of the word of God (the others being revelation and proclamation). Barth argues that when God genuinely speaks through his followers (experience and tradition) it is every bit as much the Word of God as scripture. Here we should consider the power that His prophets' messages often had (consider Jonah's reluctant message that changed the thought process of an empire). Likewise when God's revelation brings us into His presence (experience) it is as much The Word of God as scripture. We can see from the Bible itself that the Patriarch's only communication with God and His Will was through revelation. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Paul  all became followers of God not because they encountered the Sacred Text but because they encountered God through His revelation.  Many of today's "conversions" occur the same way.  It is my opinion is that many of the Catholic practices (tradition) which have been rejected due to the Reformation served the purpose of revealing God to practitioners by ushering them into His presence (experience).

Again, I am not saying that Scripture is not The Word of God and authoritative. I myself am currently reading the 4 gospels alongside themselves so that God might use them to speak to me so that I may be transformed into a more faithful disciple of Christ by exploring what He taught and how He and His apostles lived. But again, my reason tells me that I am not to try to change my life circumstances to be more like Jesus' (quite my job to become a carpenter), rather I am trying to faithfully approach my life situations as Jesus would (how would Jesus do things if he "had my life").

The practically of all this for parents other youth workers and myself is that we need to stop telling young people to ignore their reason and their experience and instead learn to understand them in the context of God's Word (Scripture, Proclamation and Revelation). I truly believe that if a Seventeen year old believes in the physical death and resurrection of Christ, and that through that event sin and death, his/her sin and death, has been defeated by God's Holy gift - that repentace of his/her sins will lead to enternal union with this God - and if this person believes that God is the Sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe, then maybe it's not the end of the world if he/she doesn't know if they believe that Genesis 1 and 2 is a literal depiction of the earth's creation.

Finally, we must recognize that Christ-followers of 1,000 years ago would be just as horrified and uncomfortable with what Christianity and the Church has become as we are about where we fear it is heading…


Reading Suggestions

1. Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence.
2. Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics I:1-The Word of God as the Criterion of Dogmatics.
   
3. Mike King's Presence-Centered Youth Ministry.