The Faith We Affirm
A Response to Thomas P. Rausch's Scripture Principle
The
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) or DOC have had from our very beginnings
a belief that individuals are free to interpret scripture as long as it is done
in community. This of course is in
conflict with the magisterium or “teaching office.” To claim that the scripture principle is
flawed is not entirely inaccurate, but to claim that Christians need a
magisterium to help them to make sense of the scriptures is in my opinion
slightly flawed as well.
For
Rausch to claim that there have been divisions in the protestant church over
the interpretation of scripture is true, but his portrayal was not entirely
accurate in my opinion in his articulation of there being a “crisis of the
scriptural principle” (125-126). There may
be divisions between “literalist” and those of us who believe biblical
scholarship has advanced to a point where we have free access to different exegetical
points of view that allow us to engage scripture from perspectives that go
beyond mere simple charismatic interpretation.
We believe that hermeneutics and more importantly sound exegesis allow us
to approach scripture from a theologically firm footing. In my opinion those of us who rely on
biblical scholarship are in a position to be free from a consortium that frames
the discussion for us opposed to being allowed the freedom to use the tools of
exegesis that allow us to approach scripture with what Ronald Osborn, a noted
DOC scholar wrote in The Faith We Affirm,
with a “reverent intelligence.”
As
a member of the DOC, the faith we affirm is biblical, for within the universal
church we receive the light of the scriptures.
However, the faith we affirm is more than that. It’s a faith that is reasonable; it thinks
the Bible through with common sense.
It’s a faith that is empirical; it reads the Bible in light of the
knowledge that comes to use through new discoveries, through advances in
physics, medicine, psychology, anthropology, and all of the sciences. It’s a faith that is pragmatic; it tests in
action the teaching of scripture and all religious notions. And it’s a faith that is ecumenical; the
Disciples mind seeks biblical understanding in the light of the common mind of
the whole church.
It
means that the Bible conveys the knowledge of God. The church, from its earliest days, has
called the Bible the Word of God.
Through its writings God speaks to us.
Not that God gives us orders through these ancient texts, but that the
same God who confronted the people of Israel and the early church long ago now
confront us as we contemplate their story.
To understand God and the shape of the Christian life, we go to the
Bible for light.
Where
do you stand? Does a church rich in
being exposed to the scriptures, free from oversight, but rich in Biblical
scholarship allow for a greater awareness of what the scriptures say or does
having a learned bodied of “officials” give light to the scriptures or does
that body take away from one’s ability to search the scriptures freely?
Disciple of Christ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reflection on authority and the scriptural principle, especially in the DOC tradition. What I got from Rausch's argument was that the principle of "sola scriptura" inevitably leads to divisions within the (Christian) Church because the process of interpretation is contentious between both individuals and communities. Absent an institution of human authority and a dynamic tradition the (Christian) Church, the Word of God does not interpret itself. If left to choose between scriptural fundamentalism, scripture interpreted through an "independent" principle, or the authority of Tradition, I would favor the later because Tradition by its nature is dynamic, responsive to culture, and in the context of the Christian faith engaged in a centuries-long dialogue with scripture. This appears in many respects more fit to this Catholic.
However, as a member of the Christian Church, which the bishops of Vatican II claim subsists in the the Catholic Church, I take a broad view of history and Tradition. The Christian Church is distinct from but legitimate heir to the faith of our Hebrew and Jewish forebears. From Paul on down through the centuries, Christianity has incorporated cultural (and therefore religious) signs and practices from other cultures- Greek, Roman, Celtic, African, American, etc. Over the last century, our Tradition has changed through the influence of inter-religious and ecumenical dialogue, secularism, social sciences and the new physics. If these "outside" influences can be digested and subsumed by Catholics, so too can the bread of our sister churches enrich our table. In other words, the Christian Tradition may be richer, if also more contradictory, if both Catholic and Protestant approaches to scripture were seen as legitimate in the same way contemporary Judaism and Christianity are both inheritors of the Hebrew faith (see Nostra Aetate). I'd like to have it both ways. Perhaps, that admits too much contradiction. But were it not for the contributions of Protestant, social science interpreters of scripture, Catholics would not have the fruitful past century of exegesis that has played a major role in opening the doors of renewal within our own church tradition.
I appreciate the dialogue here between the two of you. Without a lengthy follow up, I would just like add these points:
ReplyDelete- From my Roman Catholic perspective, separating the magisterium from the community is a false distinction. The community of the Church contains the magisterium, and the magisterium exists to serve the greater community by its ministry of teaching. It also at the same time belongs to the community it serves.
- The magisterium does not "do the thinking" for the rest of the Church. Roman Catholics are called to freely follow their formed conscience and to come to embrace the faith freely and authentically. Any coercion here would be wrong. The work of the magisterium comes in here to serve and aid the formation of one's conscience, to provide teaching and interpretation that is faithful and authentic to the deposit of faith (Word of God in Scripture and Tradition) so that a person can come to the most solid understanding of the matter at hand.
Finally the reality of the magisterium is theologically complex: it is of course the bishops, but it also involves theologians as well as "the sensus fidelium" or the Spirit-led discerning wisdom of faithful believers.
I hope this helps shed some additional light on who the community it (magisterium included!) when it comes to teaching the faith.
Blessings,
Daniella