Per Christum

When Clinton was running for president, his advisers began saying “it’s the economy stupid,” suggesting that we should vote for Clinton because the election boiled down to economic conditions. Whether or not this was true, it gives me an opportunity to write about authority.

Look around on Christian blogs, Christian chats, and even the myriad Christian denominations, and what causes most disagreements? It is the Bible, or more specifically, how to read the Bible. With the exception of a few mainline Christians, almost all Christians turn to the Bible for their beliefs. Yet despite the fact that most Christians agree on the importance of the Bible, interpretations of this holy book vary.

So ultimately, in the postmodern world, we can no longer speak of “believing the Bible,” nor can we with any certainty say “the Bible says…” The Bible, as evidenced by the large number of denominations, doesn’t clearly “say” anything. We cannot ask the Bible to clarify itself. The Bible must be interpreted. How can a Baptist and a Pentecostal both claim to “just believe the Bible” when their positions are miles apart on certain issues? Don’t give me the “but they believe the ‘essentials’” argument, because most denominations can’t even agree on what the “essentials” are. Even progressive denominations appeal to the Bible to support gay marriage. If the Bible “says” something, it isn’t very clear.

So if the Bible must be interpreted, who gets to interpret it? Well, many Christians say it is the individual believer guided by the Holy Spirit. However, we are then left with the same postmodern dilemma we have above. Just as both Baptists and Pentecostals claim to “just believe the Bible” both claim they have arrived at their interpretation of the Bible through reading it with the aid of the Holy Spirit. If both are right, the Holy Spirit is either leading different people to mutually exclusive conclusions, or is confused. Other Christians use different arguments. Many say something like “Scripture interprets Scripture,” meaning that if you have trouble understanding one verse in the Bible, you use another verse to clarify. Of course, hundreds of disagreeing denominations affirm the “Scripture interprets Scripture” principle, yet disagree, so this method is problematic in the same way saying “I just read the Bible” is problematic. Others appeal to the “plain meaning” of Scripture. However, virtually every denomination, including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Calvinists, appeal to “the plain meaning” of Scripture, yet they disagree vehemently.

Thus, we need some type of interpretive authority when reading the Bible. Ever since sola scriptura developed in the 16th century, Christians have been reading the Bible without any real interpretive authority, and the result has been continued splintering and disagreement. Catholics and Orthodox (while disagreeing on some of the details) at least agree that it is the Church, described by St. Paul as the “pillar and ground of the truth,” that interprets Scripture. In other words, for Catholics and Orthodox, the Church of the apostles has the right, even the duty, to correctly interpret Scripture. Just as the apostles had the authority to properly teach and exegete Scripture, so do their validly ordained successors.

The early Church emphasized its own teaching authority because it knew the dangers that resulted from reading the Bible outside the Apostolic Church. After all, the Gnostics appealed to Scripture. The Arians did too. In fact, for the most part, virtually every heretical group used at least some of the books we accept as canonical. This is why the Church Fathers emphasized the importance of the Church in interpreting Scripture. The Church is a living, concrete reality, and thus can actually speak and clarify what Scripture means for successive generations, something a book, even a holy book, cannot do.

To be fair, some Protestants do set up an interpretive authority outside of the Bible itself. Anglicans, whose church came out of the Protestant reformation, see the problems inherent in sola scriptura. Thus Anglicans have set up a system which gives Scripture, Tradition, and Reason interpretive authority, although not necessarily giving equal weight to each. The problem with using this model as an interpretive authority is that it gives us three sources of authority that themselves need interpreted. In other words, scripture and tradition must be interpreted, as does reason. What is tradition? Which traditions count, and which do not? Whose reason is authoritative, the Anglo-Catholic Anglican or the progressive one? Anglicans of all theological perspectives appeal to scripture, tradition, and reason, yet disagree wildly. Anglicanism, which is in a bit of a worldwide crisis, is a perfect example of why a church needs a concrete, living interpretive authority in the postmodern world.

Let me give a practical example of all of this: almost every theological discussion I have been involved in that has begun with a disagreement has ended in an impasse. Even though all sides quote a host of Scriptures at each other, and use convincing arguments (at least in each’s own mind), very few people ever change positions. Why? As I have written above: authority. We Catholics set the historical Church as the authority, while many others do not. Let’s look at baptism. It is the damn near universal testimony of the ancient Church that when Jesus said “you must be born again,” he was talking about baptism. Even Martin Luther believed this. Yet I still encounter Christians who believe what I just wrote is pure hokum at best, and a vile heresy at worst. They have no problem going against 2000 years of Church Tradition, because the only interpretive authority they have is their individual judgment. I am not putting them down either; most individuals I meet freely admit it is their right, even their duty, to read the Bible for themselves. It is no surprise that reading the Bible for oneself has led to so much splintering.

Ultimately, most theological disagreements boil down to authority. If we wish to have any discussion with other Christians, we must first deal with the issue of authority. We have to settle who has the authority to interpret the Bible and who has the authority to sort through tradition. Otherwise, any disagreement we have will result in an impasse. Only if we agree on some sort of concrete interpretive authority will we make real progress. This is not easy, since agreement on a common interpretive authority is unlikely, but at least it recognizes the source of our disagreement, which is a start.