Category Archives: Ecclesial

The Hierarchy of Scripture, to Creeds, to Confessions, to Theologoumena for the Protestant Church

Posted on by

In lieu of this oft confusing issue in Protestant (and Evangelical) circles, in particular; I thought it would be appropriate to share how Oliver Crisp seeks to parse the inter-relations between Scripture and Tradition for a Protestant understanding of “authority,” relative to her principled commitment to sola scriptura. It seems to me, that for many “Evangelical Christians,” in particular, that we believe that sola scriptura (scripture alone) is solo scriptura (scripture all by itself, with no history of interpretation to consider); but this is just never really the case, even if we think it is. Scripture, indeed is the norma normans (norming, norm) for all theological development; but this does not also mean, that Scripture is not something that goes without interpretation, it clearly presupposes that it is interpreted. It behooves us to pay attention to how the Holy Spirit has worked in Christ’s Church through the centuries; it behooves us to consider the fact that God has provided His Church with teachers, and that these “teachers” have said something substantial and “churchly” shaping that we all are partakers of. This is not to say that the so called Tradition of the Church is sacrosanct, or above critique, it is not! But it is to say, that as contemporary interpreters today, that we should not run rough-shod over the history of interpretation by marginalizing it through contextualizing it to a nether-socio/cultural situation that necessarily particularizes it to a certain period; thus implying that the past has no universal force (in providing meaning) for the present and the future. Let’s consider what Crisp has to say on this, and then hear what you think about it in the comment meta.

  1. Scripture is the norma normans, the principium theologiae. It is the final arbiter of matters theological for Christians as the particular place in which God reveals himself to his people. This is the first-order authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.
  2. Catholic creeds, as defined by and ecumenical council of the Church, constitute a first tier of norma normata, which have second-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. Such norms derive their authority from Scripture to which they bear witness.
  3. Confessional and conciliar statements of particular ecclesial bodiesΒ  are a second tier of norma normata, which have third-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. They also derive their authority from Scripture to the extent that they faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture.
  4. The particular doctrines espoused by theologians including those individuals accorded the title Doctor of the Church which are not reiterations of matters that are de fide, or entailed by something de fide, constitute theologoumena, or theological opinions, which are not binding upon the Church, but which may be offered up for legitimate discussion within the Church. [Oliver Crisp, god incarnate, (New York: T&T Clark International, 2009), 17.]

This is how Crisp conceives of how sola scriptura works in an ascending order of relative authority, Scripture being the final and norming voice upon all other pronouncements. So the ecumenical creeds (like Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Chalcedonian-etc.) have more established authority relative to their echo of Scripture; then subordinate to that, Confessions (like the Scots, Belgic, Westminster, etc.) have relative authority per their positioning vis-Γ‘-vis the ecumenical creeds and then Scripture; then subsequent to this comes the voices of the theologians and biblical exegetes. The claim is not that the Creeds, Confessions, or Theologians cannot be debated (just the opposite); but it is the idea that if a theologian or biblical exegete want to disagree with a Creed/Confession, that they will have to assume their relative authority and validity and work through them (supposing that they are representations of what the “Church” has believed as formative norms) versus working around them (supposing that they have no relative authority or interpretive force whatsoever for the contemporary Church – which is the posture and attitude that produces solo scriptura).

What do you think about Crisp’s accounting; is it too Traditional and shackling for your Free Church sensibilities, or do you think that he presents something here that must be considered with seriousness?

Sola Scriptura, Re-Imaged

Posted on by

I thought this was a nice quote from Kevin Vanhoozer on his the Gospel Script or Sola Scriptura as practice (vs. the usual idea of it as principle). What is of import, from my perspective, is the point that Vanhoozer drives at here; the point is one that Karl Barth and others have pressed extensively, and that is that the Scripture’s primary point is not to present a religious encyclopedia full of facts about God and His Son. Instead, the Bible’s goal is to point us to Jesus Christ and the relationship that that entails! Further, that the Scriptures have various Types, Forms, & Genres and we shouldn’t flatten these out in order to fabricate or construct our doctrinal statements which only lead to and from static notions of who God is and thus what the Bible is about. Let’s here from Vanhoozer:

Canonical Script

At the heart of the canonical-linguistic approach is the proposal that we come to know God by attending to the uses to which language of God is put in Scripture itself. Scripture’s own use of Scripture is of particular interest, for the cradle of Christian theology is perhaps best located in the interpretative practice of Jesus and the apostles. It was this interpretative practice that enabled them to read the Scriptures of Israel as identifying Jesus as the “Christ.” Canonical-linguistic theology therefore takes its primary bearings from the Scriptures themselves, making what we shall call canonical practices the norm for the church’s speech and thought of God. Sola scriptura returns, then, not by positing the Bible as a text book filled with propositional information but by viewing the Bible as a script that calls for faithful yet creative performance. Scripture is the norm for the Christian way, truth, and life, but only when Scripture is conceived as more than a handbook of propositional truths. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama Of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach To Christian Theology, 22)

I really like this proposal! The Bible should clearly be seen more as a place where we encounter the living God, and much less (if at all) as a place where we go to proof-text our pet dogmas. Vanhoozer, to be clear, is not arguing that “doctrine” is not important; but instead that doctrine should be given its proper and transformative frame. That is, that doctrine is really how “we” engage in signifying what in fact the Scriptures demand and impose upon us (spiritually and morally) as we meet the living Lord through the Spirit spirated witness that the Holy Writ actually is. So the implication is that Scripture and its interpretation has more to do with persuading and challenging God’s people, as God’s people, to be God’s people through response. The other supposition at work here, is that studying Scripture is really more of an emphasis of how Scripture studies us!

Our Day at the Greek Orthodox Church

Posted on by

We visited a Greek Orthodox church today, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Portland, Oregon. My wife and I had been there before, years ago; but we thought we would go there with our kids to let them experience something like that. It was an interesting experience. There is definitely a sense of transcendence that Protestants often miss out on in their church services (which often emphasize the immanent or “closeness of God”); but I think that if Protestants, in general, go in an extreme in one direction, the “Orthodox” take it to the other extreme. It is a beautiful liturgy, with the smell of incense in the air, the Priests in their vestments engaging in chant and praise to our God, Jesus Christ. Unfortunately about 3/4 of the liturgy is in Greek; being able to read Koine Greek (which I can) and picking it up in chant in a liturgy are quite different things.

I think some of the more unfortunate things about the Greek Orthodox is that they are really Sectarian, that unless you have been chrismatized into their Church; received baptism and holy communion through their church; your salvation is non-existent. Further, while the Gospel is certainly spoken in the liturgy; it is not clear. If I were Orthodox, and I invited an “un-saved” friend to the Liturgy; he or she would not be able to understand or even truly “hear” the Gospel in a way that would make an impact on them in a “personal” way.

Our kids are really kind of too small to understand exactly what’s going on, but it did prompt some good discussion toward explaining differences between Protestants, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics; they do understand that, at a basic level.

I think we stood out like a sore thumb. We didn’t “cross” ourselves throughout the liturgy — as the faithful do — we didn’t respond back to the Priest, because the Liturgy was hard to follow, and it was primarily in Greek; and of course we did not participate in Holy Communion, in fact we are not allowed to because we aren’t considered the “faithful.” Also, I brought my Greek New Testament with me; which nobody else in the church did, they don’t bring their Bibles to Liturgy (which is the saddest thing to me, I understand why they don’t, theologically). In fact towards the end of the Liturgy I had an older guy (he was Greek) question me about my Greek New Testament, which he saw sitting on my pew. He wanted to know what it was, I don’t think he understood why I had the Bible with me.

Anyway, an interesting experience; it makes me glad that I am “Reformed” in orientation, and that the Bible is something that I can take to church (should)!