For Debate…
Isn’t Facebook an interesting thing? I am never disappointed when I sit down to read everyone’s latest status update and learn who’s travelling, who’s fed up with their day, who’s kids are driving them to the brink of insanity, who’s eating a bowl of cereal… You never know what you’ll read, and it is always entertaining. Yesterday I noticed that a friend of mine, who is an undergraduate New Testament professor, asked if “anyone knows a good Queer reading of Mark”.
There is a Biblical interpretation for just about every type of life experience (female, feminist, Latin American, Black, Islamic—to name a few), and it begs the question (I think): What is the ruler by which we measure these interpretations as accurate representations of the character of God? This is not to suggest that certain experiences are invalid or less worthy than others, only that experiences in and of themselves cannot be authoritative. It will probably come as no surprise that I have a few opinions on the topic, but I’m mainly interested in yours. So, please, comment and let us hear what you have to say!
You have raised what is classically discussed in terms of sources and norms.
What are the sources from which we may learn about the nature of God and of ourselves?
Traditionally sources have been limited to the words of Scripture (and perhaps the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). However there seems to be more and more emphasis on experience (both individual experience and corporate experience) as a source of knowing.
The other question is related: What is the norm by which we measure the trustworthiness of the source? aka What is normative?
Traditionally the norms have been limited to the biblical text (Scripture interprets Scripture) and to the witness of the community (witness of the community of faith recorded in the biblical text and the traditions of the church [creeds, etc]).
As to the above question, “what is the ruler by which we measure these interpretations as accurate representations of the character of God?” I suggest the same standards apply: the biblical text itself and the traditions of the church. However, I have discovered that truth is often revealed by God in the nexus of differing ideas. In the Bible studies I lead, sometimes to most faithful understandings (or most compelling thoughts) come from the tensions between differing voices and opinions.
One of the things I love about being a part of the Reformed tradition is that the Reformed creeds consistently seek to 1) ground their statements of belief in the biblical text, 2) proclaim a universal faith, & 3) acknowledge their propensity to err inviting the next generation to join in the work of reform. The hallmark of the reformation can be stated: Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda Secundum Verbum Dei “The Church reformed, and always being reformed according to the Word of God.”
If you are willing to follow Karl Barth’s lead, another way of thinking about this is: Jesus Christ is the source. Jesus Christ is the norm without parallel. The church is reformed and always being reformed by Jesus Christ, the one Word of God! To the Glory of God. Amen.
This is a good — no, important — no, ENORMOUSLY significant –question. I think that I only slightly exaggerate in saying that, in practical effect, this is the single most important theological question in the Christian faith. The way that we answer this question impacts how we answer virtually every other controversial question that has divided Christians in the past or today — from the debates about the nature of Christ in the early Church to the debates over the Real Presence during the Reformation to the controversies about sexual ethics that divide churches today.
It seems to me that only three logical alternatives exist for answering this question (yes, I know that this sounds simplistic, but hear me out). Each of these alternatives can be associated with a dominant theological tradition in Western Christianity: (1) the “Scripture Only” approach (which I associate with traditional Protestantism), (2) the “Experiential” approach (which I associate with “Liberal” Protestantism, (3) and the “Magisterial” approach (which I associate with Catholicism). (I suppose that the “Magisterial” approach also applies to Eastern Orthodoxy and the High Church wing of Anglicanism, diverging from the Catholic view only with respect to what institutions wield magisterial authority (i.e., the papacy vs. the bishops as a whole). However, I would be interested in hearing the views of someone who is more familiar with the Orthodox or Anglican positions than I am.)
My spiritual journey has been that of one who was nursed and reared by the “Scripture only” viewpoint, seducted by the “Experiential” viewpoint, and then finally fully and completely embraced by the Magisterial viewpoint. My reception into full communion with the Catholic Church in my late 20s was inspired in large part by this question, and that, as Robert Frost says, “has made all the difference” (more on that in a minute).
Before I proceed, let me address your likely objections. “Dan” you say, “I know where you’re going here. Your three categories are really just another way of referring to Scripture, Experience, and Sacred Tradition. Those aren’t alternatives at all. Aren’t they all sources of authority?”
Ah, excellent question, my astute reader. No, I’m not suggesting that Scripture, Experience, and Sacred Tradition are mutually exclusive sources of authority. But at the end of the day, we need to figure out which one of these will provide the final authority when Scripture, Experience, and Tradition “appear” to be in conflict.
As I understand it, the approach that I’m referring to as the “Scripture Only” approach holds that the Bible can be fully and completely interpreted solely in light of itself without recourse to any other source of authority. Under this view, the meaning of Scripture is generally obvious and apparent when Scripture is read according to its “plain meaning.” In short, under this view no Magisterium is needed to interpret the Bible because no interpretation is needed at all.
This approach is attractive. It’s consistent with our belief that God would not hide the ball from those who love him, and it protects against a kind of gnosticism that reserves access to divine truth for the special few with a direct dial to heaven. This approach always made immense sense to me until I got to college and started studying Church History in earnest. As my Church History professor once noted, the Bible can be interpreted to mean virtually anything that someone wants it to mean. Even putting aside those who are intentionally proof-texting to support some nefarious agenda, it seemed clear to me that people of good faith and genuine love for God can reach reasonable — and very different — interpretations of the Bible on any variety of issues.
Moreover, it occurred to me in college that often those who purport to espouse the “Scripture Only” view are in fact — subconsciously perhaps — appealing to Tradition on any number of topics. I do not doubt that the Nicene Creed is a trustworthy witness to the truths set out in Scripture, but can we really conclude that the complex Christological definitions announced at Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. are simply obvious concepts drawn from a straightforward reading of the Bible? Put another way, if an extraordinarily intelligent Martian — with no prior concept of Christ or even God in general — were to visit Earth and read the Bible cover to cover, does anyone suppose that the Martian would immediately conclude from a careful reading of the Scriptures that Christ is “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, eternally begotten from the Father, begotten not made, one in being with the Father?” I think not.
For all these reasons, it became apparent to me in college that the Scriptures alone cannot be the only or even final source of authority because, divorced from Tradition, every individual’s interpretation of the Scriptures is equally authoritative. That type of outcome in which every individual’s interpretation is equally authoritative is essentially the logical end of the second approach – the Experiential approach – to which I was for the first time exposed in college and during my time at a mainline Protestant seminary.
I confess that I am not as familiar with what I am calling the “Experiential” approach, in part because I was exposed to it for a shorter period of time than the period of time that I was to the other two alternatives. (Thus, if I am misrepresenting this approach, please know that it is not my intention to do so). However, as I understand it, this approach essentially argues that the Bible must be interpreted in light of one’s experience.
This approach also has some attractive elements. The Evangelical tradition in which I was raised placed a good deal of emphasis on one’s individual experience in converting to Christ (though the actual church community in which I was raised tempered this emphasis on experience with a healthy dose of Presbyterian suspicion of “enthusiasm” (to use the Nineteenth Century term).) Thus, it was not hard for me to accept the idea that the Bible, as the living Word of God, must speak to – and be informed by – my own experiences.
Nonetheless, in college and seminary I became increasingly uncomfortable about the Experiential approach when taken to its logical ends without the discipline of Tradition. In its most extreme forms, the Experiential approach affirms the authority of Scripture only to the extent that it speaks to one’s personal experiences, even to the point of rejecting portions of the Biblical canon at odds with one’s experiences (or at least reinterpreting them in such a way as to avoid any conflict with one’s experience.) St. Paul doesn’t speak to your experience as a gay woman? That’s cool; you can take the stuff about love in I Corinthians 13 and scrap the stuff about sex. St. Matt ain’t hip to your jive as a militant Marxist? No problem, comrade; you can focus on the “poor in spirit” stuff and ignore the stuff about turning the other cheek. And it’s not just for folks on the political Left. Amos doesn’t speak to your experience as a Wall Street banker? Relax, boss; it turns out that God actually WANTS you to be rich!
I suppose that this kind of individualistic approach can be tempered by looking more at the collective experience of the faith community and less at one’s own individual experience, and in a sense Tradition itself is the experience of the community of faith over the centuries. But, again, when taken to its logical ends without the discipline of Tradition, such an approach tends to reject portions of the Biblical canon that do not speak to contemporary experience (or at least reinterprets troubling passages in such a way to avoid any conflict with modern sensibilities): “Well, yes, it’s true that Christians used to believe in a literal resurrection of Christ, but that kind of stuff just doesn’t square with our modern experience, so we should feel free to revise our interpretation in light of what we now know.”
The problem with this approach as I see it is that, if our interpretation of the Scriptures is not rooted in some transcendent and fixed interpretations, then essentially all moral and spiritual truths are relative. Every new generation must reinterpret the Bible in light of its own experiences, and, without any firm or fixed mooring to evaluate its experience, each generation is left without any means of speaking prophetically to the culture in which they live. Is there any wonder that the German Protestant churches – the very churches where this tradition got its start – were by and large so powerless to speak prophetically in the 1930s and 1940s? Divorced from historical Christian teachings to moor their theology, such churches were simply powerless to stand up to the culture in which they lived, and the consequences of that tragic failure still can be seen today in Dachau, and Buchenwald, and Auschwitz.
Thus, for all these reasons, we need the guidance of Tradition. Scripture alone cannot provide the final source of authority because Scripture itself needs to be interpreted, and Experience along cannot provide the sole means of interpreting the Scriptures without devolving into ecclesiastical anarchy.
I am grateful for Dan’s helpful explication of Scripture alone, experience, and Magisterium. Interestingly being from a tradition that has held “Solo Scripture” to be key, we from the Reformed tradition continue to turn to that tradition for instruction. For all of our criticism of the Roman Catholic Magisterium, we have constructed our own sort of magisterium of creed and confessions and faith documents.
So I concede to Dan the need for grounding/rootedness in the tradition. In relation to this issue, I find the “Nondenominational” movement in the United States to be interesting. It seems to be a uniquely North American way of jettisoning all tradition in order to start a new tradition. Often it is stated “we don’t want to be burdened with the history of denominationalism”. Thinking we can set out on our own, we start something new without realizing that we bring our traditions/biases with us. Perhaps Nondenomiationalism is simply the natural conclusion of our North American desire for independence.
The Magisterium instead is a call to radical dependence on those who have gone before us. My worry as a Reformed pastor is that the Magisterium (or the Reformed Tradition itself!) becomes the idol to be worshiped and revered instead of Christ alone who is head of the church. Again why I am ever grateful for the Reformed confession that even counsels err. The church needs to be continually converted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
The question that remains for me is: In what ways did the Magisterium develop the standard to which we are beholden? Did it not come to its conclusions through prayerful, spirit led debate of the Scriptures (themselves a collection of religious traditions), their own discernment based on experience (personal and corporate!), and the faithful witness of many who have gone before (read tradition)?
So to Dan’s objection I dare point him to the influence of Scripture alone and experience in the development of the Magisterium!
So where does that leave us? In the presence of the incomprehensible God who loves us and reveals wisdom as faith seeks understanding. Perhaps that is the one thing we can agree on.
Thanks for these helpful comments, Chris. I especially appreciate your description of the Reformed tradition as the Magisterium for those within that tradition. The late Father Richard John Neuhaus once wrote about his childhood in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, in which the churches in that communion looked to the theology faculty at Concordia Seminary as a more or less de facto magisterial authority in interpreting the Scriptures. I suspect that for many years, and at least up until the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, Charles Hodge and the faculty at Princeton Seminary held a similar position as de facto magisterium for American Presbyterians (though I would have to defer to a Reformed Church historian on that point).
I think your observation that tradition is necessary even within Reformed churches is a significant step toward advancing Reformed-Catholic dialogue. To add to that observation, I think that, in the years since the Second Vatican Council, Catholics for their part have become more conscious of the need to ground theological pronouncements explicitly in the biblical text. I am forever grateful to the Reformed tradition for giving me a love of the Scriptures, and I think that the Reformed observers at the Second Vatican Council probably had a strong influence on the renewed emphasis on the Scriptures that has so greatly blessed Catholic life over the past 40 years.
To your question — how does the Magisterium reach its conclusions? — you are quite right that it is through “prayerful, sprit-led deabte of the Scriptures themselves,” the experience of those in the Church, and “the faithful witness of many who have gone before.”
That said, I think it is important to note that when we speak of the “Magisterium” within the Catholic Church, we have a different understanding of that term than the understanding of “tradition” within Reformed or Lutheran churches. As I understand it, the Reformed and Lutheran traditions look at “tradition” as a loose body of post-biblical writings — from the writings of the Church Fathers to the statements issued by the ecumenical councils to the creeds and confessions issued by the Reformers (Augusburg for the Lutherans, Westminster for the Reformed) — that are entitled to considerable deference but that are not themselves “authoritative” in the truest sense of the word. To use a legal analogy, “tradition” in the Lutheran and Reformed churches is a lot like what lawyers call “persuasive authorities”: written statements about the law (cases decided by other courts, records regarding legislative history, law review articles, and other scholarly materials) that should be considered by the court but that are not binding on the court.
The Catholic Church also looks at a loose body of writings as “tradition”: including the writings of the Church Fathers and other saints, from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to modern-day saints likes St. Therese of Liseaux and Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta. However, in addition to this loose body of tradition, the Catholic Church proposes that the Church itelf — the Magisterium — has authority to sift through this body of tradition and issue definitive — indeed, infallible — statements on faith and morals that are binding on the community of faith. Thus, to return to my previous legal analogy, in the Catholic view, the Magisterim is not simply a persuasuive authority to be considered and weighed alongside other authorities. Rather, it is akin to a Supreme Court decision, which is binding not only on the litigants in a particular case but on all subsequent courts and litigants in subsequent cases.
(In the event that I one day have to the opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of a judicial confirmation, I should note that this analogy should not be taken too far. The Supreme Court is not “infallible” and can sometimes reverse — rather than clarify — prior decisions. The infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case, for example, was an erroneous decision, and in reversing the “separate but equal” holding of that case, the Supreme Court did not simply clarify an earlier precedent but rejected it. The same thing cannot be said for the Magisterium in the Catholic view. The Magisterium can and does clarify prior statements, but it does not “reverse” previous statements.)
I think that it is also important to note that, in the Catholic view, those to whom the Church’s teaching authority is entrusted — the bishops, led by the Pope — hold such authority not because of their own merits but because of the office to which they have been entrusted, through apostolic succession, from Christ himself. Again, to return to my legal analogy, if Chief Justice Roberts were to author a law review article on some constitutional issue, the Chief Justice’s article would be entitled to considerable deference. However, it would not itself be binding authority because Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues on the Court have the authority to define the law not because of their great legal credentials (notwithstanding how impressive those are) but only because of the offices to which they have been entrusted by the American people through their elected officials.
I share your concern that such an emphasis on Magisterial authority can sometimes be twisted in such a way as to take away reverence for Christ as Head of the Church. Certainly the history of the Church — and certainly the history of the Church in those dark decades leading up to the Reformation — demonstrates all too many situations in which those who have the teaching office of the Church have lost focus on the fact that they held such office only for the glory of Jesus Christ. Yet at its core, the Catholic conception of the Magisterim is intended to be a humbling realization that every believer is subject to — and united under — the authority of Christ.
Pope John XXIII was keenly aware of this. I have heard that when he went to sleep at night, burdened by the stresses of shepherding Christ’s flock, John XXIII found considerable solace in knowing that it is Christ, and not he, who rules the Church. From what I know of Benedict XVI, I’m sure that he shares the same sentiment, as did his predecessor, John Paul the Great. May we all take comfort in knowing that we can sleep in peace knowing that the same Lord who created and redeemed the world is watching out for His Church!
Dan, I am grateful for your thoughts. Your discussion of Magisterium is helpful and illuminating as I reflect on my own tradition. I think we Reformed have much to learn from our Catholic brothers and sisters.
On one point, I raise the Reformed worry… You state, “The Magisterium can and does clarify prior statements, but it does not ‘reverse’ previous statements.” As a Reformed thinking, my worry rises in the thought of not “reversing” statements. Even the legal case you site, “Plessy v. Ferguson” is a good illustration of corporate sin. I must ask, “Could such corporate sin not also influence the church?”
As a Southern Presbyterian, I must say a resounding, “Yes!” for it was some of my ancestors in faith who argued from the pulpit that slavery (and later “separate but equal”) were indeed God’s will for the world. It was not until the 1960’s and specifically in the Confession of 1967 that such corporate sin was acknowledged and reversed for the good of the Presbyterian church (indeed the good of all people of faith).
So perhaps my question is: “In what ways does the catholic church ‘confess’ its corporate sin?”
To quote from the PCUSA Brief Statement of faith:
“In a broken and fearful world
the Spirit gives us courage
to pray without ceasing,
to witness among all peoples to Christ as Lord and Savior,
to unmask idolatries in Church and culture,
to hear the voices of peoples long silenced,
and to work with others for justice, freedom, and peace.”
In what ways does the catholic church “unmask idolatries in Church” (even in the Magisterium)?
Good question, Chris!
I should begin with the caveat that, although I trust that I am accurately representing what the Catholic Church teaches, my perspective is merely that of a lay Catholic who of course cannot speak for the Church. Thus, if my explanation in this post or any other previous post is in need of clarification, I invite any other readers to correct, clarify, etc. (Priests, deacons, sisters, etc. who may be reading: please feel free to chime in.)
With that caveat, I think I should clarify that not everything that has ever been said by a bishop or pope — and certainly not everything that has ever been said or done by a majority of Catholics — constitutes “Magisterial” authority. When we speak of “Magisterial” documents in the Catholic church, we are referring to a specific type of document that bears an official imprimatur on matters of doctrine or morals. (I believe that there are various guidelines under canon law for what kinds of documents represent truly “Magisterial” documents, but someone who is more knowledgeable about the subject would have to comment).
To make an anology to your own tradition, surely no one would say that a stateement issued by single presbytery (or even an overture passed by the entire General Assembly) bears the same relative weight of authority as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and certainly comments from the pulpit from individual pastors do not rise to the level of a Creed or Confession. Somewhat similarly, there is a big difference in the Catholic Church between, on the one hand, an off-hand remark by the Pope at a press conference or even a pastoral letter by a national bishops conference (like the USCCB) versus, on the other hand, a papal encyclical or an officially endorsed compendium of Catholic doctrine (such as the Cathechism of the Catholic Church).
We of course recognize that the Church is made up of sinful people, and, as such, those who make up the Church have often committed sins in the name of the Church — sometimes with the apparent conding of the Church. Like Southern Presbyterians, Southern Catholics are also guilty of having endorsed slavery and segregation for the most part (though it should be said that a number of the most active Civil Rights workers in the 1960s and even before then were nuns and prists who served at African-American parishes in the South and saw the evils of segregation firsthand). Indeed, plenty of bishops and even popes have supported many causes throughout history — the Crusades and Inquisition, for example — that were shameful corruptions of the Gospel.
But while such corporal sins are an occasion of serious scandal, they do not call into question the truth of the dogmas proclaimed by the Magisterium because such dogmas do not support such sins and in fact, when properly interpreted, condemn them. To return to my analogy to the Reformed tradition, could anyone reasonably argue that the Salem witch trials — as embarassing as they were to an authentic Reformed witness — are somehow an intellectual indictment of the entire Westminster Confession of Faith? The answer is of couse no, because nothing in the Westminster Confession says that individuals must be burned at the stake when they are accused of withcraft on the hearsay accusation of a pre-pubescent child with an overactive imagination. Similarly, the fact that some people have committed grievous sins in the name of the Catholic Church does not mean that the dogmas proclainmed by the Church support such sins. To the contrary, as history has shown repeatedly, throughout time the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, learns from the past and clarifies prior teachings in such a way as to clearly condemn prior corruptions of the Church’s teachings.
In short, by saying that the Magisterium clarifies but does not reverse prior Magisterial statements, Catholics don’t mean to imply that Catholics have never said or done anything sinful in the name of the Church. What we do mean to say is that, regarding official dogmas, the Holy Spirit has so guided the Magisterium of the Church such that we can be sure that the Church bears an authentic witness to the Gospel.
Time doesnt permit me at this time anyways to include as much as i would have liked to,but let me say as much for now,as without any doubt,
your excellent blog/debate herein assures me that i will be soon returning and doing so as often as i can.
As a proud and sincere Catholic lay young person. I say “sincere” as opposed to the many “super market” or “luke warm” Catholics who really are “Catholic” in name only as…
["you are either with me or against me...." speaks cleary for as only Jesus could articulate that which is cleary what is weakening our great Church today,as i believe was included in your admirable and much appreciated blog/debate hereinregarding the theme of "everyone interpreting whatever they "prefer" to be rite or wrong or everyone redefinig God's will and Word to "accomodate what happens to be the current fasion.trend,ones personal preference or opinion or political "plot" etc. I very much appreciate your addressing the debate's theme and doing so with honor,accuracy,and humility.Your "presentation" commanded the respect,attention,and any reasonable sincere person's [including myself] realization that a bona fide Catholic as yourself surely merited the determinations and conclusions that you so efficiently pleaded.You also reinforced what are my professions which i adhere to out of obligation and practice as mandated by the Church,and in following the debate you made me proud as a sincere Catholic to grow from the manner in which you brought Catholic knowledge, you restored clarity where today’s onslaught of deceptions are so prevelant to discredit that [the Church]which often times is society’s only sole hope of survival due to America’s current path toward it’s certain destruction due to its cancer of total impropriety and immorality fueled by the “Culture of Death”.
Did he say something about not having enough tome to remark about how much your Blog/Debate accomplished?!..heh heh..
Looking forward to returning and soon.Keep on doing what you are doing so very well for humanity,our fellow man,our awesum Catholic Faith and last but certainly not least Our Lord,whom im sure appreciated it [you] even more than myself certainly did.
Thanks, Jerry, for your nice comments. I should point out that I was only responsible for presenting the topic for debate. My husband, Dan, and our good friend, Rev. Chris Denny (PCUSA) contributed all the smart stuff. I’m glad to hear that you’re enjoying the blog!