Posted on 11/07/2011 7:57:34 AM PST by marshmallow
(ABP) -- The sexuality conference in April will raise many issues. But for the theologically minded, the most important issue will probably be the question of religious authority.
Who or what carries binding authority in the Christian life? If the question is, for example, sexual morality, who or what has the authority to establish norms to which Christians must adhere? In a cultural (and ecclesial) context of innumerable conflicting practices and beliefs, who or what has the authority to settle the matter? Or is that even a coherent question? At least, is it a coherent question from within the framework of Baptist ecclesiology and theology?
The winners in the SBC controversy of 1979-1991 claimed that their fight was always about (re)establishing the authority of the “inerrant, infallible Word of God” in the life of the Southern Baptist Convention. They sought to heighten claims first about the inspiration of the Bible and then about its authority in Christian life.
Sometimes, though not always, they acknowledged that it is not quite sufficient to anchor down claims about biblical inspiration and authority. They acknowledged that the Bible is always an interpreted text. Some person, office, or body must be responsible for “rightly dividing the Word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15 KJV). Often referencing pastoral epistle texts, some SBC leaders heightened pastoral interpretive authority along with biblical authority.
So that is one answer to the question of religious authority. Raise belief in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible as high as possible, deflecting all challenges to such belief, then elevate the pastor’s role in authoritatively interpreting the Bible for the congregation. These moves imply if not demand a posture of submission on the part of the lay Christian, who is trained to yield to the authority of Scripture and to the teaching authority of the pastor.
This approach is not all that different from the Catholic tradition -- a comment offered as observation, not criticism. The differences, of course, are that in Catholicism Scripture is treated as the first stage of Spirit-inspired tradition, and Scripture/tradition are interpreted authoritatively by the magisterium of the Church, organized hierarchically and headed by the pope. But both the current SBC and the Catholic approaches emphasize authority rather than freedom, submission to text and leadership rather than individual conscience or collective Christian discernment.
The potential benefits of such authoritative (if not authoritarian) approaches such are especially apparent when wrestling with issues like sexuality. Today all kinds of voices, both from within Christianity and outside it, are begging, cajoling, even demanding that Christians and churches rethink our purportedly oppressive, backwards, unrealistic, archaic sexual ethics. It would be so much easier -- and less stressful -- to simply go back to inerrant-Scripture-as-interpreted-by-pastor or inspired-tradition-as-interpreted-by-pope to resolve these issues.
Looking at some of the alternatives among non-SBC Baptists, in some cases I am really quite concerned. The Bible (at times) slips out of range of ever functioning as authoritative in any way that might compel behavior contrary to our preferences. Pastors (at times) abdicate any role of offering directive moral guidance through sermon or pastoral counsel. Christian tradition (at times) is sloughed off or treated primarily as a source of oppression.
Human beings are created good yet damaged by sin. In Christian morality we do need Scripture, pastor and tradition to help us discern God’s will for our lives. We need some kind of voice speaking to us to which we grant some kind of authority to exhort, correct and redirect our desires.
I believe we need a heightened role for communal Christian discernment, for listening to the voice of the Spirit together as we seek to follow Jesus together. I believe we need to read the signs of the times and hear the voices of marginalized and suffering people, for in their sorrows we can encounter Jesus himself. I do believe that Scripture can be wrongly interpreted and that both pastors and tradition can be and sometimes are quite wrong.
But I do not believe we do well to jettison all authorities outside the freely choosing Christian self, so prone to interpret fallible emotions and desires as divine authorization. Certainly we can and must do better than that.
David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.
TSgt, if I remember correctly, wasn’t your sister married in an SSPV chapel?
If so, it may be better to not call it Catholic or at least specify that she was married by an SSPV priest.
That’s fair, it was a SSPV priest. Beautiful wedding cold as all get out... ;)
I’m not making anything up. You are accusing the early followers of Jesus of “making things up” to produce the written Gospels. Of course, they could not remember everything Jesus ever did, nor did they have any idea what the pre-incarnate Son might have done, unless it was recorded in the OT.
Even the great apologists of the Catholic church, like G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, did not think that the R.C. Church was acting as the pillar and foundation of the truth in the years leading up to the Reformation.
I bet it was.
Despite my disagreements with Traditionalists, they do have beautiful chapels and ceremonies.
Why do you believe this? When was this first taught? Who taught it to you? I'm saying you have no Scriptural proof that this happened. So why do you believe it?
The Bible teaches the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the Bible. The Church has assembled, defended and protected the Bible through the ages.
For a non-Catholic I’ve been to a lot of masses over the past 18 months due to weddings and funerals.
The incense always cracks me up since someone usually ends up coughing from it. My grandma choked on it at the last funeral a few weeks ago.
Though I’m not Catholic I’m always respectful to their customs as I would hope a Catholic would be if they attended one of my snake handling services. LOL! ;)
I think you’re wrong, but I’m not going to pursue this, because it does not serve the interests of the church, which is the body of believers. As I have posted before, I have stood in fields and halls, listening to great Christian music and worshipping the Lord in company with Catholics. We certainly revere the same Savior. I have great respect for the RCC, which has produced many great heroes of the faith, right up to Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI in recent times. Let’s get together and defend our brothers, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and Protestant, who are being persecuted around the world.
What about the letters written by the apostles at the time of Timothy? Could Paul have been referring to them? And, could those letters have been considere scripture suitable for doctrine?
What about the letters written by the apostles at the time of Timothy? Could Paul have been referring to them? And, could those letters have been considered scripture suitable for doctrine?
Lol, I’m glad to hear that.
And yes, I would certainly be respectful at your snake handling service ;)
Try diagramming that passage and tell me how you reach that conclusion.
I know you WANT the Church Christ established to be diminished in some way, because it better fits your traditions. But the clear words of Scripture show that the Church (of the living God) is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit to always teach the truth.
Good question. Did Paul know he was writing Scripture? I think so.
But the passage in 2 Tim clearly shows Paul was referring to the Old Testament. The relevant line is and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures The only Scripture in the infancy of Timothy, who was born in 17 AD, was the Old Testament.
How can you read it otherwise?
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 3:14-15
Now that the RCC is not in league with the worldly authorities, it again has begun to act in accord with the will of Jesus, who clearly stated that his kingdom was not of this world.
Then please don't call them "Catholic" without qualifying it as sedevacantist or schismatic. Rome has as much responsibility for what the SSPV does as they have for what the Southern Baptist Convention does.
As to the writings, this is, I think, relevant:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2803463/posts
Fact is there were hundreds of writings, Jewish and Christian, that did not make it into the canon (Canon meaning those writings that were used everywhere during the Eucharist.
My brother in Christ, we are all seeking the truth. I don’t believe there can be multiple versions of the Truth. We are seeking the one truth.
The Church of the apostles was definitely one: "There is one body and one spirit," Paul wrote, "just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5). Paul linked this primitive unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).
Scripture clearly wants us to be ONE
We cannot be one with 10,000 versions of TRUTH. Christians can’t even agree on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
I don’t believe this is what Christ wanted, or directed his followers. Keep an open mind when you read Scripture.
Well, incense is part of a tradition that goes back to the Temple. It was a sacrificial offering. Speaking of, somehow the movies we see of the Temple never quite capture the reality of it. There was a lot of singing, and of course the burning of animals as well as the incense. So the place must have been very smokey Add that to the natural scent of human beings, and you get a noseful. Which is, I guess, I reason why the Jews literally cleaned themselves before entering the temple. So sounds, smells, etc. The screams of animals being sacrificed, plus the haggling over the price of the sacrificial offerings.
In any case. one reason for the building of churches is as a replacement for the Temple. So the high priest of the Cathedral, the bishop, wore a miter and other dress reminiscent of that of the Jewish High priest. The Reformation radical were not happy with this of course. They paid homage to only one organ of sense: the ear.
What, a Roman Catholic starting a conversation on FR simply for the purpose of bashing a non-Roman Catholic denomination?
How predictable.
Try exalting Jesus for a change, and cut down a bit on the divisiveness.
Let me present a hypothetical, which Cronos (another Roman Catholic apologist) didn’t care to answer.
On one hand, you have your church leadership and tradition saying one thing. Their scholarly position, in fact, is the standard one, accepted by most people around you.
On the other hand, you have the Word of God saying something else. A few people accept this position.
Which do you believe? The church leadership and tradition, or the Word of God?
This question is open to all Roman Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.