Protestant authority January 7, 2009
Posted by Damian in Church and Christian History, Early Christian Belief and Patristics.Tags: authority, authority of scripture, creeds, protestantism, sola scriptura
trackback
James McGrath over at Exploring our Matrix explores some of the often ignored repurcussions of the Protestant rejection of the authority of the church:
I find myself wondering whether it is possible for someone to be both Protestant and orthodox. If orthodoxy involves assenting to the creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon, then can one accept the doctrinal formulations of these documents while at the same time rejecting the authority of the church to define doctrine and anathematize dissenters? It is similar to the problem of Protestants assenting to the Bible the church defined while rejecting the church’s authority to do so.
As a Protestant, I cannot simply defer to the authority of the church, but I must acknowledge that this stance prevents me from merely shifting to authorities the church produced, whether the Bible, the creeds, or something else. The challenge to authority that begins at the Reformation inevitably turns its attention to the Bible and rightly comes to question its situation as the ultimate authority as well.
And so Liberal Protestantism, in a sense, ultimately works out the self-undermining nature of the Reformation cry of “sola scriptura”, when it develops critical approaches to the Bible. Conservative Protestants, on the other hand, are forced to resort to “picking and choosing” from orthodoxy in the way they claim to detest (but nevertheless do) when it comes to the Bible.
…And so what are we left with? Much uncertainty, and the need for humility.
I’m all for people thinking through the inconsistencies in their points of view. These are great thoughts by James, and anyone who’s read here for a while knows I would agree with him on these points.
Does anyone disagree? How do you justify your choice of authority?
It’s certainly an interesting topic to contemplate!
I consider myself to be an orthodox Protestant. But why do I hesitate about the authority of the church? Because of all the corruption that has occurred over the centuries, and especially the fast slide down the slippery slope which has occurred over the past century. In the UMC our council of bishops has become very collegial, and almost to a man they value that collegiality over the Gospel itself. So how can I accept the authority of my own denomination when I see that corruption? I couldn’t accept the authority of the RCC for the same reason.
If the leaders of the church were faithful, we would follow with little problem. But we can’t follow wolves in sheep’s clothing. We must be discerning.
So what’s the solution? I have to follow the scriptures when I clearly see that the church isn’t.
I’m glad someone else has spoken up about this. I have had similar thoughts over the past couple of years, but just assumed it was heresy bubbling around in there.
Really, the Protestant rejection of ecclesial authority (and church unity, to some extent) has all but played itself out. Today, each Protestant believer has become his own little pope, speaking authoritatively about the “faith” (i.e., one’s own faith) and deciding the Bible’s meaning for himself, irrespective of history or tradition or agreement with other Christians.
Protestants (and the universal Church, for that matter) have lost the ability to censure heretics, because they just leave and start their own new “church.” This is a tragedy. In many ways, the Protestant mindset, mixed with a heavy dose of Western individualism, has produced Mormonism, JW’s, Scientology, New Age, and all the other sects. Not to mention, the loss of unity and ecclesial authority has enabled the proliferation of heretical scholars in the church and academy that are subject to no one.
Of course, the original idea of reforming “the Church” is a good one, and the reformers were right to question the corruption of the Church leadership and practice. But smashing the Church into tens of thousands of bodies–some faithful to Christianity and some not–is a travesty that we will have to answer for.
I don’t think James’ problems are quite as problematic as he thinks. Is it not possible to assent to all that the Scripture or the creeds say because they communicate truth without assenting to any inherent authority the body that canonized or composed them? In his Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon Calvin said:
So to answer your question of how do you justify your authority, I think we could say by appealing to truth which is inherently God’s.
*Correction* — should read “authority IN the body…”
Gary,
I understand where you’re coming from; I was referring to the historic church, rather than the modern church, though.
Ray,
I agree that this is an issue.
Nick,
I think you’ve made a good point there. However, this brings up messy philosophical problems. How do we know scripture is true? Is it by appealing to personal discretion, or through the authorities of Christian tradition? I feel that the former is a dangerous thing to appeal to.