Sola Scriptura History

There was a question about Sola Scriptura from another post of mine, and my response became so long, I decided to make it into another blog post. So here it is:

There are people who would only believe something if it were stated in the Bible. The problem is that is not the original intent of Luther's Sola Scriptura.

Luther's development of this theological point was in reference to the Roman Catholic Church asserting various theological truths based on tradition. This was usually done with a political purpose, including maintaining the power of this institutional church and its leaders. As Luther began investigation Scripture, he argued that not all of these theological points were accurate, but the church once again argued against him based on tradition and threatened his life more than once.

Therefore, in contrast to a tradition-based theology, Luther went to the other spectrum, stating that we should only develop theology based on Scripture. That's why he also advocated for all people having the right to read the Bible (previously, only priests were able to do so). He made the first German language translation in order for the masses to be able to read the Bible and therefore challenge beliefs based on tradition.

This is the origin of why many Protestant churches advocate that everyone own and read the Bible and why many Protestant denominations are less hierarchical than the Catholic Church.

The problem is that many people have taken it to the extreme, arguing that if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth. Further, interpretation of the Bible is done out of context. Again, if we hold literally true to Sola Scriptura, then we need not understand other things like psychology, sociology, history, biology, physics, etc. in order to understand Scripture. This obviously creates many theological and interpretation problems, yet many Christians do not even realize they have faced these problems. This article describes some of these problems, too.

We need to interpret the world around us through the lens of the Bible, while interpreting the Bible with the information gleaned from the world.

Motivated by Fear

As I'm continuing to study for my licensing exam, I came across some information from social psychology on persuasion. While logic- and reason-based arguments can be effective, so can emotional arguments, particularly fear. To make it the most convincing, the message much create a ton of fear, be believable, and include specific ways of avoiding the bad stuff.

Hmmm. Sound like anything that happens in Christianity sometimes? Like hell, fire, and brimstone messages? It makes me look at this message from John Piper even more skeptically.

Accountability Partner or Parole Officer?

I was thinking recently about the ideas of accountability partners. I've never liked the idea of them, and I think I finally know why.

The theology of accountability partners is in many ways rooted in the moralism my friend discussed on here yesterday. It's about being morally holy all the time. Avoiding doing bad rather than encouraging to do right (there can be that, but really the point of these partnerships is avoiding sin).

From this perspective, accountability partners are almost more like parole officers: You were just released from prison (saved from Hell by Christ), but you still need to check in with your PO regularly because if you do something wrong, you'll just go right back. The goal is to keep you out of prison rather than building you up and growing you.

While it can be good to have someone help keep you away from doing wrong, there is so much more to life and our spiritualities than that. Really, moving away from sin is part of moving towards Christ. So spiritual formation partnerships more along the lines of spiritual directors seem a lot more biblical and helpful.

Additionally, accountability partners are often thrown together and expected to be totally honest with one another. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If anything, it would lead to more denial, which just causes more problems. And further, from what I hear, accountability partners usually give overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Not that they are honestly trying to help to the best of their abilities, but it just doesn't seem to be all that great.

It's not great in part because it's so shame-focused. "How did you screw up this week?" is kind of the theme of accountability. I think a better question is "What did you do right?" And rather than giving an simple answer to screwing up, we should ask, "How can I help you?" Just reminding other people to not do certain things is rarely helpful. And frankly, temptation is not always indicative of spiritual weakness; it can be a sign of something deeper going on.

An example of this is sexuality. And let's be honest, when people talk about accountability partners with regards to men, it's about sex. The list of no-nos for men who are in accountability partnerships are likely to include: lust, noticing another woman, thinking about another woman, dreaming about another woman, and the biggest sin: masturbation.

While these things could be problematic as an addiction, they can also indicate that there are relationship problems going on. Just as I talk about with symptom management in psychology, these "sins" may actually just be the symptom of something else and only focusing on the symptom ignores the problem, making it come out in another way.

Accountability is an important thing, but it should occur within the context of a supportive, encouraging, trustworthy relationship. What do you think?

Moralism

This is a guest post by my friend, Calvin Thomsen. He has two doctorates: Doctor of Ministry and PhD in Marriage and Family Therapy, plus he's a great guy!

In addition to being a part of a local congregation I also enjoy visiting other churches and listening to a variety of sermons. I’ve done it for decades. Over the last several years I’ve noticed a trend in evangelical churches towards something I call "moralism." It can take good concepts (like a high view of Scripture or a desire to promote Godly living) and put a twist on them the makes a sermon more like a scolding or lecture than a proclamation of good news. After listening to a recent sermon in a church I was visiting for the first time I developed what I call a “moralism checklist” to help me recognize the eight key components of moralism.

1. Enemies. The crux of this is, "Isn't it horrible about the.....[pick the evil of choice--humanists, socialists, gays, heretics, Buddhists, Paris Hilton, Oprah, naturalistic scientists, etc.]. Lots of energy is focused on the creation of enemies and a lot of the firepower of the sermon is generated by the emotions that "enemy talk" can generate. Three things you do with enemies. a) blame them for all your problems, b) run away from them, and/or c) "fight them."

2. Misguided Attribution. What are the principles of "cause and effect" in this sermon? Are bad things that happen to people inappropriately blamed on things people do or don't do that probably aren't the real cause? Lost your job? Probably because you didn’t tithe. An earthquake in Haiti? Must be because of voodoo. Sometimes the sermon includes false promises of "rewards" that may not be realistic (i.e. if you don't have sex before marriage you will have endless erotic and relational bliss once you say "I do.").

3. Biblicism. Are there references to "The Word" that suggest the instant answers to all questions, the final word on science, a kind of magical power, or recipe book? Is there a wooden, literalistic approach to the bible that always assumes we know what the true "Biblical" answer is and that all other sources of insight or knowledge must be trumped by your particular interpretation of what the Bible says?

4. Gnosticism. This refers to the belief that the crux of Christianity is "being right." Having the correct belief on any particular issue is the key to authentic Christianity. Sometimes this plays out in terms of "my religion is better than your religion" and disputes between different Christian groups or groups within a church. A lot of theological warfare is of this variety.

5. Triumphalism. Is the portrayal of Christianity and the work of Christ such that creates a triumphalistic, "we're right and everybody else is wrong" perspective. This can also apply to aspects of "the American way" as well.

6. Denial. Are there hints that "good Christians don't have these problems" (or they have them only if they are "being wicked")? Are there quick fixes or easy formulas used for complex human problems such as divorce, sexuality, addiction, the dark night of the soul, etc.? Does the sermon set the stage for people to shove certain problems underground or only talk about them with disclaimers (i.e. "I know that Lord is giving me victory over this") instead of an honest exploration of feelings?

7. Privatized Behaviorism. Do "private sins" (i.e. lust, gluttony, etc.) loom so large that they overshadow more collective approaches to systemic evil in the world? Is it worse to look at a racy website than to do an "Enron" or "AIG" that nearly brings down the world economy? Or to ignore policies that increase poverty? Or be indifferent to environment because "when Jesus returns he will clean up our mess"?

8. Imperative-ism. Is more of the gospel about "oughts" and "shoulds" rather than what God has done and the initiative he has taken in Christ? How much scolding and lecturing factors into this message? Sometimes it includes statements such as "God may be a God of grace but if you don't get you act together in the following way you will go to hell."

Luther's Incarnational Gospel

This weekend, I found a neat plaque with a quote from Martin Luther, saying "God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars."

Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.

Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.

Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?

Set Apart

Last week, I discussed the love one another verse in Leviticus and a way of looking at Leviticus other than the legalistic way we often approach it.

This past week, Luke 6:27-42 was part of the devotional liturgy in the Mosaic Bible. This is the passage on loving your enemies. As I was reading it, I thought back to the Levitical love passage and blog post. This is another passage that is often approached legalistically, with people sometimes literally saying to have people whack you on both cheeks.

I'm not sure Jesus was advocating a literal adherence to this way of loving our enemies. This time reading through it, the passage hit me more as a way of living out the "love one another" command and setting ourselves apart from the rest of the culture. The culture at the time of Jesus was not very loving. There was a lot of hierarchy and abuse (including quite literal, physical abuse). So engaging people in a different way was as a significant a difference as the ways the Israelites were commanded to act in Leviticus in contrast to the other Canaanites. Frankly, in Jesus' time, living out Leviticus would not have really been that significant as a way of setting believers apart.

We are a much more loving society, at least on the surface. Treating people fairly is expected (again, at least on the surface). Are we really asked to become doormats and walked all over. I don't think so. Rather, we need to love people radically in ways that are holy and biblical and are different from the rest of the world. This is not to say that loving people in the ways of the world are inappropriate. We just need to do something more, too.

I'm honestly not totally sure what this would look like. I have some ideas, but I'd rather hear what some of yours are.

Misunderstanding the Fall and Hell

This video from BioLogos and this one from Out of Ur are provide excellent summaries of the misunderstanding of the Fall that many Christians have. I've discussed this a couple of times previously, but this presents some of it in a clear, concise way.

It really is important to note that much of our understanding of Heaven, Hell, and Satan come from Milton's Paradise Lost, not necessarily Scripture.