Many people would have been excited by the prospect of discovering a new idea for himself; I was simply bitter. I think what bothered me most was the notion that so plain an idea as this had not presented itself to me earlier. From that crappy Sunday on, I have asked myself two questions:
- Why didn't you think of this sooner?
- Why didn't anyone ever tell you this?
Both questions were equally frustrating.
(Continue Reading...)
So I had learned to ask not, "Whose interpretation of scripture is the right one?," rather to ask, "Who has the authority to make an interpretive claim regarding scripture?"
This is a question I had never asked before in regard to my faith, though I had operated under the same principle in other areas of my life. For example, in school I depended on the authority of the teacher to make truth claims. Now, I'm not denying the possibility that the teacher could have been factually incorrect, but when test time rolled around, I knew that the "correctness" of the teacher had no bearing on how she would grade my test. Indeed, my only concern was to answer the questions in the way she had prescribed in earlier lessons. The teacher had the authority to tell me how to answer the test questions.
I also soon realized that, though I had never been taught this directly, I had always been taught a certain interpretation of Christianity by way of a spiritual authority held either by my parents, my pastor, or my faith community. This authority structure, however, is typically down-played in protestant denominations; the more acceptable answer - the one I had been taught - on the "authority to interpret scripture" is generally given as this:
The Holy Spirit is the sole arbiter of scriptural interpretation. You, as a born-again believer, have the Holy Spirit living in you. Therefore, you personally have the authority to interpret scripture if you listen to the Holy Spirit's guidance.
It's the final part of this statement that is the main difficulty: "if you listen to the Holy Spirit's guidance". This begs the questions, "how do I know I'm listening?," and the harder question, "how do I know my pastor is listening?"
It didn't take long to accept that any interpretation is possible under the ruse of divine guidance. Historically, I would now argue that most, perhaps all, of the world's silliest Christian-based cults are derived solely on the basis of one man's or one woman's
"personal inspiration". Not to step on toes, but Joseph Smith, Ellen White, David Koresh and other famous cult leaders all claim to have had some divine vision that lead them to the creation of their respective cults. The doctrine I was taught, is the very doctrine that validates the existence of these para-Christian groups. Mormons or Mooninites have as much a valid claim on scripture as do I if I make my "personal inspiration" the key to interpretive authority.
I understood that this concept of "personal inspiration" served only to confuse the issue, particularly in light of the many, diverse scriptural interpretations of faith communities, all of whom claim the Holy Spirit's guidance. This claim is simply not sufficient to make an authoritative interpretive claim on scripture and Christian living. Something more is needed, and I would spend the next three years asking that same question:
"Who has the authority to make an interpretive claim regarding scripture?"
(Continue Reading...)
So I had learned to ask not, "Whose interpretation of scripture is the right one?," rather to ask, "Who has the authority to make an interpretive claim regarding scripture?"
This is a question I had never asked before in regard to my faith, though I had operated under the same principle in other areas of my life. For example, in school I depended on the authority of the teacher to make truth claims. Now, I'm not denying the possibility that the teacher could have been factually incorrect, but when test time rolled around, I knew that the "correctness" of the teacher had no bearing on how she would grade my test. Indeed, my only concern was to answer the questions in the way she had prescribed in earlier lessons. The teacher had the authority to tell me how to answer the test questions.I also soon realized that, though I had never been taught this directly, I had always been taught a certain interpretation of Christianity by way of a spiritual authority held either by my parents, my pastor, or my faith community. This authority structure, however, is typically down-played in protestant denominations; the more acceptable answer - the one I had been taught - on the "authority to interpret scripture" is generally given as this:
The Holy Spirit is the sole arbiter of scriptural interpretation. You, as a born-again believer, have the Holy Spirit living in you. Therefore, you personally have the authority to interpret scripture if you listen to the Holy Spirit's guidance.
It's the final part of this statement that is the main difficulty: "if you listen to the Holy Spirit's guidance". This begs the questions, "how do I know I'm listening?," and the harder question, "how do I know my pastor is listening?"
It didn't take long to accept that any interpretation is possible under the ruse of divine guidance. Historically, I would now argue that most, perhaps all, of the world's silliest Christian-based cults are derived solely on the basis of one man's or one woman's
"personal inspiration". Not to step on toes, but Joseph Smith, Ellen White, David Koresh and other famous cult leaders all claim to have had some divine vision that lead them to the creation of their respective cults. The doctrine I was taught, is the very doctrine that validates the existence of these para-Christian groups. Mormons or Mooninites have as much a valid claim on scripture as do I if I make my "personal inspiration" the key to interpretive authority.I understood that this concept of "personal inspiration" served only to confuse the issue, particularly in light of the many, diverse scriptural interpretations of faith communities, all of whom claim the Holy Spirit's guidance. This claim is simply not sufficient to make an authoritative interpretive claim on scripture and Christian living. Something more is needed, and I would spend the next three years asking that same question:
"Who has the authority to make an interpretive claim regarding scripture?"
Posts
Where does that doctrine of interpretation originate? I'm not so much challenging it as I am just wondering about its origin. Indeed, it resembles what I believe to have been the basic idea I've always been taught as well. But as I just read it, I'm wondering about its intent. I would tend to apply the meaning of a "right" to the term "authority" in that doctrine. In other words, as Christians, we have the right to exposit the Word. Correctness of our exposition may be an entirely different matter.
ReplyDeleteClearly, it seems the likes of Koresh and Smith (I can't speak to the other person you mentioned) took the narrower interpretation of "authority" as a springboard and became out and out egomaniacs. Therein lay the difference, in my opinion, between Joseph Smith and R.C. Sproul. Sproul may hold to the tenor of that "doctrine," but it's tempered with the active realization that, at the end of the day, HE is not the Holy Spirit.
well, the main idea comes from the notion of "sola scriptura" which was first fully developed during the protestant reformation (mid 16th century).
ReplyDeletei agree that it is unfair to compare Sproul to the crazies i mentioned. that was my reductio ad absurdum example of the doctrine's full implication.
I would argue that Sproul is not quite as guilty as I had been of abusing my interpretive abilities. He would be more careful in respecting history and a particular interpretive tradition. But that raises the question, "which tradition is the right one?" or rather, "which tradition has the God-given authority to make valid interpretive claims?".
The discussion becomes one of dueling traditions rather than dueling individuals. Whether it's two men or two denominations, some authority is necessary to determine the proper interpretation.
Example: as a guitar player, I need the "authority" of a pitch pipe or electronic tuner or at least a trustworthy piano to know that my guitar is in tune.
To my knowledge, Scripture puts no pressure on the "expositor" to get it RIGHT. Only to try. The only expositing entity Scripture condemns is a false prophet who, by definition, is knowingly distorting the Word. I'm wondering if it's some tradition you've either been saturated with or that you have saturated yourself with that is dictating these feelings of pressure to finally and ultimately discern THE correct tradition, and not Scripture itself that is exhorting you in this way. Is there a Biblical precendent for your angst?
ReplyDeletehey chris - i'm late to the party but i only discovered that you had this running around just today.
ReplyDeletewhat about the possibility that the "Holy Spirit" isn't the arbiter (your italicized explanation sounds rather like a relativistic "well to me, God is..." or "well to me this passage says..." - that i think we would all blanche at - such has been my long standing beef with mainstream Christianity).
what if we as believers are responsible to understand to the best of our ability what Scripture says - in other words, let Scripture be the arbiter of what Scripture says. So rather than a systematic approach, take a Biblical approach. work from specific to general rather than the reverse.
there was a lot of discussion of these topics, if i recall, in kennard's seminar class where he spoke of the notion of "illumination" as being traditional rather than scriptural. and i would agree - i don't know of any promises that the Holy Spirit is, without a doubt, going to give me THE CORRECT interpretation of scripture if i just learn how to listen to him clearly.
which is why i'd be concerned about creating a class of expositors who had the "authority" that you talk about. because the question that you ask never goes away - no matter who is doing the interpretation. the question of their fallibility always comes to bear.
the best we can do, it seems, is to get as close to what the author intended as we can. and then express with a bunch of humility - this is what the author seems to be saying here, and if the author is saying this, then the truth that we can know about God is...
without direct inspiration no one has the kind of authority that it sounds like you want to find. like josh mentioned, we can only ever get to "this is the best we can do."
just a couple thoughts.