Posts Tagged ‘Scripture’

Recently, I’ve become more and more attracted to the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Scripture, that is, Scripture is a part of Tradition rather than a separate entity from it. Where this differs from the Roman Catholic view is that the RCC sees Scripture and Tradition to be two pillars of the faith.

The questions this creates:

1. If we see Scripture as part of Tradition, what do we do with individual interpretation? Does it cease to exist?
2. Also, what do we do with language, historical, and scientific developments? Are they to be ignored if Tradition has yet to deal with them?
3. How does this handle the idea of experience (as in the Wesleyan belief)?

These are some questions I have for the EOC view. If you are Orthodox, could you assist me with these questions?

The problems this solves:

1. It seems that the New Testament authors were, at many times, working within a particular interpretive tradition. They would often quote Scripture with no regard for historical context and reinterpret it to prove a specific Christological point. For instance, interact with Matthew’s use of Hosea 11. Matthew clearly interprets this to be a futuristic prediction of Jesus the Messiah. However, Hosea clearly is referring to a past event, that is, exodus, without any futuristic content. Matthew changes the text because his interpretive tradition, at that time, did so. Thus, it seems that the EOC continues such a tradition, in that it reads Scripture within a certain tradition rather than separate from it.
2. The EOC view, also, answers the question I raised before, “How did Christians handle issues of the faith for 300 years or so without a canonized Scripture?” Well, apostolic tradition, of course.
3. It also keeps from wild (even unbiblical, unchristian) interpretations since EOC members learn to submit to the authority of the community, the Church.
4. Lastly (and by no means does this exhaust this section), everyone relies on Tradition, whether they’d like to admit it or not. For instance, rapture theorists rely on a tradition, even though it’s only a 200 year-old, American tradition. So, when the question comes, “What does First Thessalonians 4 mean?” These Christians would say, “Well, it’s talking about the rapture.” But the majority of global Christians would say something else, perhaps like, “Well, Paul is using Caesar language there, making Jesus the ‘better Caesar.’” Denial one’s own reliance on tradition is naïve. We all do it, at least, the EOC admits it.

I would like to hear what people have to say about this, especially, those of you from the RCC or EOC, though I’d love to hear from you, Protestants, too. If you could offer some insight, please comment below.

This is a post I wrote for www.everydayliturgy.com some time ago. It was also “tweeted” by Emergent Village and baptimergent, and it was mentioned on multiple blogs. I’ve engaged in this conversation a few times recently, and, thus, I figured I would post it here, as well.

[I in no way hope to draw a conclusion about this topic here, but I hope it opens doors to serious dialogue not only between Protestants but also with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters.]

I have increasingly become aware (throughout my own worship and interpretation of Scripture) of the difficulty of sola scriptura, that is, Scripture alone is authoritative for the Church. As a Protestant I know that it is one of the foundations of Martin Luther’s theology. In my church-life, every time I’ve come to question sola scriptura, I am quickly reminded that it is what makes Protestantism “great,” and so we can now remove ourselves from dead rituals and traditions that have for so long “plagued the Church” prior to Martin Luther.

However, I’m not so sure what sola scriptura has evolved into is what Luther ever intended.

I think Protestants have forgotten that the Church had no “scriptura” in canonical-form until the early 300s CE. How did they handle issues of the faith for 300 years? You guessed it – tradition. How did they determine how to live as the Church through those times? Modeling the faith through – tradition. For the early church, tradition was part of their story. It’s explained who they were. Tradition is what brought life to the writings they had received from the apostles.

Here’s where I have to turn this topic over to a statement made by Stanley Hauerwas –

When sola scriptura is used to underwrite the distinction between text and interpretation, then it seems clear to me that sola scriptura is a heresy rather than a help in the Church. When this distinction persists, sola scriptura becomes the seedbed of fundamentalism, as well as biblical criticism. It assumes that the text of the Scripture makes sense separate from a Church that gives it sense. Perhaps those among us who maintain such a position forget that for much of the Church’s life most Christians could not read, but that did not in itself make them less faithful…That Christians have learned of Christ and Christ’s relationship to Israel through biblical scenes portrayed on church windows and stone carvings and statues of the saints, alive and dead, should be sufficient for us to realize that the text of the Scripture is not mean to be “preserved intact” separate from the Church [p. 27-28; Hauerwas, S. (1993) Unleashing the scripture: freeing the Bible from captivity to America. Abington Press: Nashville].

Scripture cannot be removed from the Church. The Church does not rely solely on Scripture, but it relies on its story, equally. How does God, then, use Scripture and tradition together? Hauerwas explains further, “God certainly uses Scripture to call the Church to faithfulness, but such a call always comes in the form of some in the Church remind others in the Church how to live as Christians – no “text” can be substituted for the people of God” (p. 28; emphasis added). We constantly see the same thing in the Hebrew Scriptures – the prophets are always pointing the people back to remember their story, their tradition, in order to remind them what it means to be “God’s people” in their land.

Is Scripture neglected? Does tradition take precedent? No, Scripture and tradition always bounce off one another. Try to explain Jesus’ divinity without the Nicene Creed when confronted with Jesus’ rejection of divine status in Mark 10v18. If Scripture alone is our authority, Jesus is not God, for he rejects it, as he does in other places. But the Nicene Creed reminds us – Jesus is “of one Being with the Father.” Thus, the Nicene Creed assists us in our reflections upon Mark 10.

On the other hand, Luther’s reasoning for sola scriptura allows Scripture to hold accountable the Church and (at that time) the selling of indulgences. Scripture and tradition must go hand-in-hand.

If we hold Scripture and tradition hand-in-hand, reminding ourselves what tradition has to say about Scripture, and Scripture about tradition, it influences our worship and how we live as “God’s people.” We remember the importance of the Eucharist, and it is not reduced to a boring “ritual;” instead, it brings life. We remember the importance of baptism, not as “some thing we just do” but as something that brings life. We remember the Church’s stance of non-violence, and we second-guess our tendencies to partake in any of its forms. If we do so, we will live stories of justice, embrace, love, and service. We will remember our heroes and heroines, and we seek to live in the Christ-like ways they did. Scripture walking hand-in-hand with tradition brings life, not death (as many have supposed), to the Church.

If we do not take seriously the relationship between Scripture and tradition, I’m afraid sola scriptura becomes more of a heresy than a help.

I’ve recently started re-reading Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Enns’ “incarnational analogy” of Scripture is basically that Christ being the “Word of God” is equally fully man and fully God, and so is Scripture being the “Word of God” is equally fully human and fully God. I have been moved by the following:

Enns explains that the difference between Jewish interpretation and Christian interpretation of Scripture is that Judaism engages tensions and ambiguities and even suggests that Scripture allows for tensions in order to invite the interpreter to “problem solving.” On the other hand, as so in my experience, evangelicals tend to sweep tensions “under the rug” (so to speak). About evangelical Christian interpretation, Enns correctly states:

As quite distinct from Jewish interpretation, the history of modern evangelical interpretation exhibits a strong degree of discomfort with the tensions and ambiguities of Scripture. The assumptions often made are that Scripture should have no tensions and that any such tensions are not real but introduced from the outside, namely, by scholarship hostile to evangelical Christianity. Whatever tensions remain are addressed either by posing some direct solution (however ingenious) or by moving the problem to the side (”We know it has to fit somehow; we just aren’t sure how”).

p. 72, Enns, P. (2005). Inspiration and incarnation: evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Baker: Grand Rapids.

For more quotes, which I found noteworthy, go here.

I’ve recently started re-reading Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Enns’ “incarnational analogy” of Scripture is basically that Christ being the “Word of God” is equally fully man and fully God, and so is Scripture being the “Word of God” is equally fully human and fully God. I have been moved by the following quotes:

On the interpretation of Scripture: “To put it succinctly: the Spirt leads the church to truth–he does not simply drop us down in the middle of it. To say this is not a low view of Scripture or the role of the Holy Spirit. It is simply to recognize what has been the case throughout the history of the church, that diverse views and changes of opinion over time have been constant companions of the church and that God has not brought this process to closure” (p. 49).

On the uniqueness of Scripture: “What makes Israel’s law and wisdom literature unique is not so much what it says (although that is certainly true with various laws), but Israel’s claim to be connected to the one true God who alone has the right to lay these claims upon them. That is the message to the other nations: This is the law of God who delivered us from Egypt; this is the wisdom of God who created heaven and earth. We worship him. The similarities between Israel’s conduct and that of the other nations does not make Israel less unique among the nations any more than Jesus’ sharing in the customs of practices of first-century Palestine makes him less unique. Rather both Israel’s practices and Christ himself are evidence of ‘God with us’” (p. 59; bold mine).

Enns, P. (2005). Inspiration and incarnation: evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Baker: Grand Rapids.

Aren’t they great?! I think so.