Evangelicals, for good measure, at least in sentiment, claim to be committed to Scripture alone (sola Scriptura). But in reality, the majority of evangelical Christians are really committed to Scripture all by itself (nuda Scriptura solo Scriptura). What most evangelicals think about Scripture all by itself, is just that: i.e. that they donβt have tradition aiding them in the way they interpret Scripture. So, they operate with this sort of naivete about what tradition is, and how its inescapable reach implicates even their βinterpretationβ of Scripture; i.e. it isnβt just the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who have βtradition.β But my question is why, why do evangelicals operate with this sort of theological naivete? The response to that question is multiplex, let me focus on just one angle into that via a suggestion.
I think evangelicals operate with the sort of interpretive naivete that they do, vis-Γ -vis the Bible, because they have never been βcatechizedβ into the conciliar, and thus historic categories of the Christian reality. In other words, evangelicals, in the main (although per a recent poll, this is becoming less and less the case too), believe the Chalcedonian grammar that Jesus is both fully God and fully human in a singular person; and the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan grammar that God is one in three/three in one. But they only know this, if they do, tacitly. They donβt appreciate the serious hermeneutical gravitas that gave rise to such orthodoxizing grammars as that obtained in the patristic churches. As such, these grammars about who Christ is, and who God proper is, are, for them, accidental rather than essential realities of the Faith.
My contention is a simple, but I think a profound one: evangelicals, in the main, are not educated, in their early Christian formations with the sort of theological and christological categories that allow them to even begin thinking about scriptural interpretation in terms of a necessarily theological way. Surely, this development of Christianity has to do with the modern turn-to-the-subject/individual and the rise of individualism that engendered. Modern humans consider their personal con-sciences to be the terminus of all that is real and holy. Insofar as evangelicals are slavishly βmodernβ in this way, to think in terms of conciliar grammars or from within the communio sanctorum (communion of the saints), is rather anathema to them. As such, they only are able to think in terms of βme-and-my-Bible,β as their hermeneutical norm. Some might call this the rationalist way; I would.
Just some notations I thought I would make. Carry on.
I’m afraid we’re rowing into the future–properly facing the stern with our backs toward the prow, with that past serving nicely as reference for navigation–but, we’re unskilled at rowing and fog and darkness has set in.
Bobby, wouldn’t you say that if the past theological conclusions are true, then the modern pursuit of truth should yield the same result but maybe expressed in different language? If the Spirit is ultimately the author of Scripture, then He is still speaking with or without reference to the past. I think it is wise to use the language of the past to express biblical truth (as clarified/modified by the succeeding centuries) because it then unifies the messages to both the church and the world. However, ultimately, it is the conclusions of the truth seeker that matter, not the form of expression.
I donβt understand your question. How does the Spirit speak without reference to the past? But my point, in my post is different: my point is that Christians in the main believe church history started with them. But no, insofar as I grasp your question and point: it isnβt that the Truth isnβt always the same, He is. Itβs that our understanding of it is growing and transforming as we are genuinely in contact with that. But because God is not a stasis, but is personally dynamic, the idea that truth is static is not ultimately an accurate characterization vis a vis God.
Yes, we do have a past. But my point, Richard, was that evangelicals are totally ignorant of that, in the main, and how that implicates their reception of Holy Writ.
I agree, Bobby; that is my intended point as well, although my chosen illustration was a bit obscure. (The prow of the skiff is directed toward Him who is personally dynamic; yet as we navigate by dependable ‘marks’ and referents, these referents have become both “clouded” and unskillfully utilized.) Both He who is personally dynamic and “the way we’ve come” are required to know where we sit “in the waters;” both ignorance and lack of skill compromise our awareness of our ‘lostness’ in our present situation.
Richard, my first response above was to Steve, not you.