The Bible In The Post-Christian World (Part 3): Is the Bible The Only Authority?
In the introduction to this series, we established a hypothetical debate with a young lady who feels called to serve as a pastor and who makes the argument that she follows Jesus, not Paul, as the basis for her rejection of the New Testament warnings against women in leadership offices. In the previous post, we looked at the possibility that she might mean that the Bible is not completely inspired by God, that there are parts of it that are just the opinions of men. Moving on from that argument, our friend might instead be arguing that, while the Bible is an important authority in her life, it is not the only authority. In American culture, many different authorities vie for our allegiance, whether they be political, spiritual, or philosophical. But, in our culture, there is no greater authority than our own feelings. Can we say that our hearts should have full sway over our morals and worldview? Is this the chief authority under which we place all others? In this post we will look at two errant views of authority, and then, in the next post (part 4), a right view of the Bible’s authority.
The Inward Light
If I were to take a poll of those who read this to ask who among you knows a Quaker, I am very confident that we would get back a very minuscule percentage. Yet, despite their passivism, their quiet demeanor, and the continuing decrease of their numbers in the US, the Quakers have had an outsized influence on religious thought in America. Quakers have fostered a belief that has taken root and spread within the American religious landscape: a belief known as the “Inward Light”. Quakers take the Work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating the believer’s mind beyond the bounds of Orthodoxy by teaching that, when assembled together, the people of God can be directed entirely by the inner light of God to know his will and do it. The serious flaw in this belief is that the Quakers and their spiritual progeny placed the authority of this inner light on par with, if not above, Scripture.
So, today, this belief manifests itself in a number of ways. Many liberal denominations believe in an “open canon”, that God is still at work to inspire men and women, and that this inner inspiration carries as much if not more weight than Scripture. In the case of ordaining women to ministry, these denominations no longer even consider the direction of Scripture, choosing instead to accept the inner leading of each individual believer as they follow “God’s will for their lives”. And so, the United Methodist Church says, “One reference from Paul may appear to rule out the ordination of women, but United Methodists also take into account other scriptural references as well as our tradition, experience and reason.” (McAnally, 2017). Scripture is understood alongside tradition, personal experience, and reason. Note that Scripture is not supreme among these four, but interpreted and influenced by them.
But the argument doesn’t just involve the ordination of women. It also involves much more Biblically clear-cut issues like the ordination of homosexual pastors, or the approval of gay marriage. Way back in 1989, the Episcopal church became the first in the US to ordain an openly gay priest. The presiding bishop said, “Christian moral standards have changed quite dramatically. We had slavery in a Christian nation. We had oppressed women. I think that our world is more Christlike when it’s open to all of God’s children.” (Navarro, 1989). Here is again the idea that the Canon is open, that the beliefs of what it is to be “Christlike” evolve with society. Even worse still, one of the founding fathers of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Cecil Sherman, said, “A teacher who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired.” (Mohler, 2003). How would someone come to deny a clear teaching after having been “led by the Scripture”? Well, it is because Sherman and others like him allow for the inner light, experience, “Christlikeness”, or whatever else you want to call it, to influence their interpretations of Scripture. In my own experience, I have had a youth discipleship training teacher argue that divorce (and particularly her divorce) could be justified if someone had not originally married his or her true love. She said that the greater sin would be failing to follow one’s heart and marry the person that God had made for him or her.
And so, we come back to the young lady who wanted to be a pastor. She might very well have argued like so many others that she should be ordained as a pastor because she felt the inner leading of the Spirit to do so. You might also hear this same young lady, two years into her ministry, teach that homosexuals should be able to marry because the church understands the Scripture in light of its experiences. Twelve years down the road, this same woman, now a denominational leader, might argue that the denomination ought to ordain homosexuals because they are led by the same Spirit. And, twenty years later, when leading a prominent seminary, this same woman might argue that the historic Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth is optional.
A Supreme Interpreter
With most arguments, there exists what Plato called a formal cause and a material cause. This is true of the Reformation in particular. The issue at ground level was an argument over salvation. Specifically, is someone saved by faith alone, or by faith plus merit? But, formally, the issue of salvation was caught up in an issue of authority. Who had the authority to interpret what Scripture says about salvation? Who got to define terms such as justification, faith, grace, and the like? The Roman Catholic church was offended by the challenge of Martin Luther because he rejected the Church’s authority to be that Supreme Interpreter. While on trial at the Diet of Worms, Luther was repeatedly called upon to recant his beliefs, and he famously said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me.” Martin Luther and all of the reformers who followed him rejected the assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that the Church’s traditions, and particularly the teachings of the Pope, were to provide the correct understanding of what the Bible means.
It is important for us to understand that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe that Tradition holds an authority that is superior to the Bible. They also do not believe that the Pope receives new revelation which extends or supersedes Scripture. What the Roman church believes is that the Tradition is of equal authority with Scripture, and that Scripture can only be understood in light of the traditions of the church.
The irony of this position is that it does not meet with the tradition of the earliest Church Fathers. Irenaeus said of Scripture, “the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all…” (Geisler, 2014). Bishop Ignatius of Antioch said, “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.” (John Stott, Understanding the Bible).
This view also contradicts Jesus’ own view of the authority of the Old Testament, his own words, and the witness of his apostles. Jesus established himself as the supreme interpreter of Scripture (Matt. 5:21–22, Mark 12:8). In his temptation, he exemplified a life that is led by the Word of God (Matt. 4:4). He rooted the teaching of the Apostles in “whatsoever I commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). The apostles, also, emphasized the importance of testing even the words that they preached against Old Testament Scriptures and the Testimony of the Apostles (Acts 17:11, Gal. 1:8, 1 John 4:1).
Conclusion
The problem with appealing to any other authority besides Scripture, whether it be our own inner light or the wisdom of clerics, is that it places the authority of God himself under another. We can’t trust our own feelings, for they often lead us astray and are governed by our own preferences. We can’t even trust good men with good intentions to interpret it for us because of the effects of power and authority on the human heart. If we cannot trust these authorities, how can we rightly understand the authority of Scripture? How do we know that we are getting our understanding of Scripture right? In the next post we will seek to answer these questions as we consider the full authority of Scripture.
