An engaging post on Wheat & Chaff discusses whether a the “postmodern” emphasis of the “emerging church” movement can be consistent with sola scriptura. The analysis needs to go a bit further — much further, really, I think.
I won’t address the weaknesses of Wheat & Chaff’s portrait of postmodern thought generally, as David at Jollyblogger has already done so in a subsequent post. Although David nevertheless lauds the Wheat & Chaff post, I think the charicature of postmodern thought is enough of a flaw to raise serious questions about its real value. Wheat & Chaff assumes that “postmodern” = “relativism,” which isn’t necessarily a fair or true statement. Clearly, one cannot espouse relativism and hold to any version of scriptural authority, but that is a straw man. Serious Christians who are seeking to engage postmodern thought don’t reject the notion of authority altogether.
A good example of this is the bookBeyond Foundationalism, which is probably one of the most dense and challenging examinations of evangelical theology in the postmodern context. The treatment of scripture in that book doesn’t abandon the notion of Biblical authority. Rather, the phrase the authors use is that scripture is the “norming norm” of the Christian community. In this approach, scripture is normative; indeed, it is the highest norm to which any other norms of the community must be held to account.
How significantly does this formulation differ from traditional formulations of “sola scriptura”? The Westminster Confession states that
“the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
Yet the Confession continues as follows:
“Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
The classical Reformed formulation of sola scriptura, then, leaves some room for individual believers and the Church to interpret the written scriptures and to order the affairs of the local fellowship. In some ways, the concept of scripture as the “norming norm” for the Christian community isn’t that different from this confessional view. In either case, there are areas in which the community has authority to set standards applicable to a given culture, time and place.
This isn’t to say the concept of a “norming norm” is necessarily the same thing as “sola scriptura.” The authors of Beyond Foundationalism seem at some points to suggest that the community not only interprets and applies the existing norms of scripture, but also creates the norms through the act of interpreting and applying scripture. Actually, the book is a bit dense on this point, and I’m not sure if I’m representing the authors’ views accurately. So, there may be some points of departure from classical doctrine which might be subject to criticism.
In any event, Beyond Foundationalism isn’t the “emerging church manifesto,” because, as David Wayne points out, the “emerging church” is still something of a disjointed jumble. Nevertheless, it clearly shows that the theology coming out of the emerging church movement isn’t so easy to define as “anti-authoritarian” or “relativistic.”
4 replies on “The Emerging Church and Sola Scriptura”
David,
Thanks for your post, though I think you’ve misunderstood Jollyblogger’s comments about my article.
That being said, this article demonstrates just the kind of doubletalk I referenced in the original post. Sola Scriptura is not a complicated doctrine- it just means that the Bible is the supreme authority on any subject on which it speaks. Either you believe this or you don’t. “Norming Norms” is just another hip way of saying you don’t want to be bound to always believe what the Bible says.
That’s the question- Do you always believe what the Bible says on any topic it speaks to? Or do you not? The one is the Sola Scriptura position. The other is not.
An example: The Bible says that women should not lead in the church. Modern sensibilities say otherwise. Which position do you take? Now if you can make a Biblical argument that it doesn’t really teach that, then fine. But then there’s no reason to attack the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But if you modify the doctrine of Scripture (as you do with creation, per a couple posts down) because of modern beliefs, then you’ve shown what your real authority is, and it’s not Scripture. You’ve decided to subject Scripture to a higher authority, be it modern PC beliefs, modern science, or anything else.
OF COURSE we have to interpret Scripture, both as individuals and as communities. OF COURSE there’s a lot that the Bible doesn’t directly address, and that we therefore have freedom to vary on. OF COURSE we use the light of nature, both to understand Scripture and to understand things that Scripture doesn’t address. None of these ideas are at all in conflict with Sola Scriptura.
But this “Norming Norms” stuff is not just a little bit different than “Sola Scriptura”. It’s the opposite. The “creating norms” thing, that you say is kind of dense, is the heart of postmodernism and the heart of every attack against the traditional view. It makes the community the authority, not the Scriptures.
There’s only one supreme authority, David. What’s it going to be? God or the community? God or the individual? God or man?
Thanks for the response Matt. I’m really wrestling with how to respond. I’ve typed up two responses, posted them, and then deleted them. I don’t wholly disagree with you, and if you read my post carefully you’ll see that I don’t claim the “norming norm” concept is necessarily the same thing as sola scriptura. But I do think you’re incorrect to say it’s the “opposite” of sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura views scripture as the final source of authority in the Christian community; so, as I understand it, does the concept of the norming norm. Sola scriptura acknowledges the community’s role in interpreting and applying the text; so, as I understand it, does the concept of the norming norm. Where the concepts differ, it seems to me, isn’t so much in the locus of authority, but more in whether scripture represents a “fixed” authority from which a set of universally applicable propositions can be deduced, or whether scripture is more of an “organic” type of authority that only finds full expression within the faith community. In some ways, this resembles discussions in the twentieth century about the nature of revelation — are the words of the Bible themselves revelation, does the Bible merely “contain” revelation, is revelation only fully expressed in the person of Christ? It’s certainly valid to discuss that difference, but not by brushing it off so lightly as “relativistic” or the “opposite” of scriptural authority.
On a more personal note, I certainly can take it, but I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I’ve rejected scriptural authority because of my thoughts on hermeneutics. You seem to acknowledge some things about interpretation and hermeneutics that I noted in this and other posts, particularly my “Operation Refuting Compromise” post. But then you turn around and sort of bash me for my post on Answers in Genesis, which is kind of odd. If, as you acknowledge, general revelation, grammar, and literary and historial context are signifiant in interpretation, why accuse me of departing from scriptural authority when I’m disussing the application of those very tools? It seems to me that you have a preconceived idea of what the text means, and anyone who thinks otherwise is therefore denying the text itself. That isn’t “sola scriptura,” it’s more like “sola Matt.”
Your mention of scripture forbidding a woman to “lead” in church raises a similar red flag. Scripture itself doesn’t say that at all. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul states “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Whatever this passage means — whatever “teach” and “have authority” means, and whether or not this is intended to be a universal principle or to address a particular local situation — it doesn’t prohibit women from having any leadership role whatsoever in a local church. So, again, it seems that your brining a preconception into the text. (It’s a topic for another day, but if you’re going to tell me “it means just what it says,” I’ll have to ask whether you think women should sing hymns during the service; if so, you’re disobeying the express comand that women should be “silent.” And we can also talk about other passages that deal with women in church, such as those that seem to command all women to wear head coverings.)
Because of some experiences I’ve had and the kinds of churches I’ve grown up in, I feel very strongly about discussing honest interpretive differences without resort to name-calling and authority-baiting. So, I’m sorry if I’ve responded a bit strongly, but I hope we can clarify the basis for the discussion and engage it vigorously.
David,
I think the issue is, as you said, “what does the text say?” But as long as that’s the question, we haven’t departed from the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” in the slightest. If Paul wasn’t saying women can’t be in positions of leadership, then I’m wrong for saying he did say that. I never said my position on it was the only possible position. But what I said was, if modern sensibilities or modern science or anything else is what is driving your understanding of the text, then the text is not your authority. The modern sensibilities are your authority.
If the “norming norm” idea is really the same as “sola scriptura” then there’s no point in naming a separate doctrine. Just stick with the old one. But if it’s different than Sola Scriptura (which I very strongly suspect it is), then it can only act to reduce the authority of Scripture. This is true because according to the traditional doctrine, Scripture is the highest authority we have. Therefore any change in that doctrine can only reduce it. If something is as high as it can be, then any change can only lower it. I am not willing to accept any lowering in Scripture’s authority.
Again, this is not to say that I understand all of Scripture. I certainly do not. Perhaps, for example, I misunderstand Genesis 1, just as perhaps I misunderstand 1 Tim 2. I am open to that. If so, I’d love to hear the argument. But all of the arguments about Genesis 1 start with “Science tells us this, therefore we must understand the text differently than we have in the past”.
It’s not a matter of AIG’s authority versus yours. It’s a matter of the Scripture’s versus yours. There is no reading of Genesis 1 which would ever produce a billion year old world, unless you started with that view to begin with. So, the scientific understanding is the authority to which the hermeneutic must bend the knee, in all “day-age” or “framework” readings. Nobody would ever approach that text in isolation from the modern scientific theories and come up with anything different than a 6-10K year old earth. Natural evidence can help us understand the text, but natural evidence can never contradict the text.
Again, I’m open to “honest interpretive diffences”. More than being open to them, I’m very interested in them. What I’m not at all interested in, is the values of the community being imposed as an authority over the text, and that’s usually what this PoMo stuff ends up as.
Otherwise, I don’t know what the heck PoMo is even about. If it’s just an attempt to understand the text, well, get in line brother. That’s what we’re all doing.
Thanks again for your comments, Matt. I’m going to address them in some later posts. I appreciate where you’re coming from, and I think we probably agree on more than we disagree on.
A few quick thoughts about Genesis 1, though, and about the use of “scientific” evidence in general. I don’t agree with your starting point: a careful reading of the text in its original grammatical and literary context raises many questions about the nature of the “days.” True, the text says nothing about a “billion year old world.” It also says nothing about a 10,000 year old world, or a world of any age for that matter. The age of the universe simply isn’t addressed in the text. I don’t claim the Bible teaches that the universe is billions of years old. Rather, general revelation teaches us that, quite clearly I think, through numerous lines of evidence. Given those facts, it’s entirely appropriate, indeed required, that we reexamine our preconceptions about the text if those preconceptions involve matters, such as the age of the universe, that aren’t clearly addressed in the text.
Further, even without the obvious teaching of general revelation concerning the age of the universe, it isn’t so clear to me that 24 hour days are the “natural” or “plain” reading of the text. In fact, I’d suggest that 24 hour days are only the “natural” reading if you take an English translation and bring to it a presupposition concerning what you already think it says.
How, for example, can they be “literal” days if the Sun, which is the basis for a literal day, isn’t created until the fourth day? The assumed existence of some other non-solar light source not mentioned in the text — which is the extra-Biblical assumption most young Earth folks make –doesn’t really help you here. The Sun isn’t merely a source of light; its gravitational well is what holds the Earth in orbit, and the Earth’s distance from the Sun and the nature of its orbit, combined with the gravitational effects of the Moon (also not mentioned in the account until the fourth day), is what makes the Earth rotate around its axis in roughly 24-hour cycles. Thus, absent the Sun and Moon, you simply can’t have “ordinary” 24 hour days. This creates a major textural problem for “ordinary” 24 hour days, which to mean seems insurmountable, whatever else the “days” may signify.
The grammar of the word “yom” or “day” also isn’t so crystal clear. I don’t have time to delve into it now, but I’ll try to do so in a later post. Essentially, the usage of “yom,” as well as meaning the phrase translated “evening and morning,” is ambiguous. Even without examining the grammar in detail, that fact that the seventh day not use the “evening and morning” formulation alone presents an ambiguity. Does the text suggest the seventh day has never ended (God is still “resting” from His creative activity), which indicates a longer time span?
Finally, reconciling the apparently different order of creation events in the Genesis 2 account creates even more internal ambiguities. Again, this provides some internal textual clues that a “literal” sequence of 24 hour days might not be implied.
For these reasons and others, many early exegetes read the “days” as something other than 24 hour days, long before the scientific revolution.
So, again, in short, I’d say that “authority” based claims for what are really interpretive disputes are unfair.