Faith, Truth, and Sola Scriptura
So yesterday I was able to get out and go hear Phyllis Tickle speak at St. David’s church here in Austin. It was nice to get out of the house and pretend for a few hours that I am still a thinking adult and not just a spit-up depository. Phyllis discussed the ideas in her new book The Great Emergence (which I blogged on recently here). She of course is brilliant in her understanding of religious trends and the transformative impact of historical events. I am really looking forward to reading the book, and wish I could attend The Great Emergence conference in December to explore these ideas further.
One thing she brought up yesterday that really stood out to me was the idea that the major controversial issues the church deals with (slavery, women’s rights, homosexuality…) are significant mainly because they challenge the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura. For most people it doesn’t matter if their reading of the Bible on those issues is perhaps wrong or biased – they interpret the Bible a certain way and anything that challenges that interpretation is a direct challenge to scripture. One could argue until one is blue in the face that the Bible really doesn’t condone slavery or support the subjugation of women, but any challenge to their preconceived notions is a death blow to Sola Scriptura. There are of course all sorts of discussions regarding foundationalism and theories of truth that relate to this idea, but her discussion connected to me on a more visceral level in relation to basic underpinnings of faith.
Recently Mike and I have had numerous conversations on how one approaches the Bible. In seminary he is mildly irritated at the either/or approach one is offered when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Either one is a literalist or one is a historic liberal. It’s one or the other. Which is of course annoying to those of us who take a slightly more middle ground. But in discussing the good parts of historical source criticism, I’ve seen that often my gut response is not to explore the truth behind such claims, but to react to how they change my faith. The good moral lessons or words of encouragement that I was taught were the core meaning behind certain bible stories no longer exist when those stories are approached from a different perspective. I find myself uncomfortable not because such things challenge truth, but because they challenge the cultural trappings of my religious tradition. I have to ask if my faith is truly in God or if it is in the presentation of the christian faith as it has been given to me.
I have no problem exploring that question and rethinking what I believe. But others see such questioning of biblical interpretation as questioning the Bible itself. It is all about our faith in Sola Scriptura as Phyllis mentioned. It is about an idea – a constructed way of being – more than it is truly about the Bible or truth. Questions and doubts challenge the superiority of our intellect and undermine our egotistical perceptions of self. We spin it other ways, but it comes down to basic posturing and the inability to admit we are wrong.
So I have to ask myself if I would rather place my faith in a false god than have that faith challenged. Is my comfort with the familiar more important than following and serving God?
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
It almost seems to me that more people who have firm ideas about the place of the Bible in religion need a lesson in communication. A message that is communicated is not always the same message received. Ideas in Scripture were encoded in an alien lifeworld to “us” whoever we are today. These messages are then re-encoded into not just our language, but in all that associates our language to the assumptions of our culture and how we relate to one another. We assimilate the text by encoding in these language galaxies (or Wittgenstein’s games as it were) and in turn our language galaxies must accommodate to the text and its alien ideas.
It’s not that different from how I address the question of nature v. nurture. It’s both – always both – with weight given more or less to each side depending on the circumstance.
The thing that any interactionist in psychology will tell you is that if there are not moments of dissonance and discomfort, there is no development. Intelligence is build in a structure of tension and release. If you are not uneasy at points where things don’t totally make sense, then you are not growing. I want to grow and that means that I have to learn from the pain that change inflicts on me. That pain is integral to what being human means.
I’m not surprised sola scripture causes these kinds of problems. It is an unnatural position to hold, and it will probably force us to do unnatural things to support it.
The Church didn’t even have scripture as we know it today for almost 400 years. It was the Holy Spirit that worked THROUGH the community of believers to put this canon of scripture together. So to say there is “only” scripture is to deny the obvious fact that the Holy Spirit works through the Church.
What kind of authority did people have during these 400 years? Also, how can you say that scripture is the only authority but then deny the authority of the Church that assembled this canon of scripture in the first place?
“I have to ask if my faith is truly in God or if it is in the presentation of the christian faith as it has been given to me.”
exactly the wall I hit three years ago…..
~truly an eye opener. But once I understood and got past that things started to fall into place. But I agree, it’s quite often a very uncomfortable place to be….
Good post – and I’m still jealous that you got to hear Phyllis Tickle…..
Julie,
The Christian life is one of continual challenge and change. Anyone who says “I believe the same things I did 20 years ago” is either lying or doesn’t read much.
As a former, recovering Baptist Fundamentalist pastor I lived many years in a controlled environment. I only read books that confirmed my rightness. I only went to places that affirmed my correctness. My associations were with those who agreed with me.
My world literally fell apart as I began to read books from outside my rut. I visited Churches that were outside my approved environment. I met new, different, and strange people.
I am now 51. The Bible is still true but I am less certain that I have all the answers. I have found that God has his people everywhere……and that good people can differ in their beliefs and opinions.
I try and hear people out. Listening to the perspectives of others is instructive and challenging.
Your last line:
So I have to ask myself if I would rather place my faith in a false god than have that faith challenged. Is my comfort with the familiar more important than following and serving God?
pretty well sums it up for me.
I remember, as a kid, seeing a preacher stand in a pulpit, raise up the Bible, and declare “we have all the answers!” My dad, who was sitting next to me, leaned over and whispered, “don’t believe him, we don’t even have all the questions.”
As someone who has a high view of scripture and a somewhat conservative reading of it, I still share Mike’s frustration. Why is the choice between chucking the Bible and adhering to every bit as literally true? Why is it swallow the bathwater or give up the baby?
Thank you for sharing this. There needs to be a place for those who aren’t ready to walk away from the word, but still think it’s living.
Dan and Bruce – I agree there has to be that development and growth. Faith is dynamic not static and questions are what lead to that growth.
Great post! This touches on so many critical issues!
I’ve noticed that anytime I express concern about the evangelical position regarding homosexuality, I am immediately accused of “not taking the Bible seriously” or “picking and choosing.” (Never mind that the people doing the accusing don’t seem to have a problem with eating shellfish or allowing women to speak in church.)
I’m not sure if the problem is so much with the “sola Scriptura” mantra, (which I think underestimates the authority and influence of church tradition in the Christian faith), but perhaps more with the idea of biblical inerrancy.
Folks seem to think that because the Bible is inerrant, their interpretations are inerrant as well.
The fact is, the Bible doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It must ALWAYS be interpreted by fallible human beings. So, for all intents and purposes, can we really claim that the Bible is inerrant?
(Don’t tell anyone I asked that question!)