How To Read Scripture
"Scripture can only properly be read by the Church: for God has given the Scripture to the Church to be read in the Church for the good of the Church. When sola scriptura is used to underwrite the distinction between text and interpretation, then it seems clear to me that sola scriptura is a heresy rather than a help in the Church."
-Stanley Hauerwas
27 comments:
Last weekend, St. Peter's hosted Richard Hays, another Duke Divinity scholar, and Dr. Hays said some nearly identical things to Dr. Hauerwas--rather surprising for a couple of Methodists!
You'll have to clarify his remarks ... who? what ? does he refer to as 'the Church'?
If is it all believer's as Scripture says, then his remarks are true.
If not his statements don't agree with 1 Cor 2
6 And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless,
7 but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory,
8 which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;
9 but, according as it hath been written, `What eye did not see, and ear did not hear, and upon the heart of man came not up, what God did prepare for those loving Him --'
10 but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God,
11 for who of men hath known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? so also the things of God no one hath known, except the Spirit of God.
12 And we the spirit of the world did not receive, but the Spirit that [is] of God, that we may know the things conferred by God on us,
13 which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit, with spiritual things spiritual things comparing,
14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned;
15 and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned;
16 for who did know the mind of the Lord that he shall instruct Him? and we -- we have the mind of Christ.
I think it is high time that this silly argument of Sola Scriptura be dropped. I, as a non-Catholic, do not beleive in it. I don't hold the Catholic view above (if it is not referring to the Church as all believers). Looks like you've met some other non-Catholics who don't ascribe to it either.
Man cannot interpret or discern the divine. He must have someone do it for him - kinda sounds like salvation doesn't it? Hence swoops in the Spirit of God. I don't interpret the Word of God for myself by myself - that is utter foolishness.
Luther in his passion to reform the Church said and did many things that can be termed extreme. I'm no Lutheran eitehr.
Tradition has it's place. I see that it must agree with the divine writings to be valid.
Hauerwas and Hays are both Methodists, so I'm sure their remarks did not refer to any particular ecclesial structure. Danny may be eisegeting a little to apply this to Catholicism. +o:-)
Danny and I are both refugees from the Episcopal Church, him into Catholicism and me into "continuing" or "convergence" Anglicanism. The recent battles within ECUSA over sexuality illustrate the basic theological point here. The decisions of ECUSA to accept non-celibate gay clergy (really any clergy living in a relationship outside of marriage) as well as "blessing" same-sex unions can not really be proven to be the will of ECUSA as a whole, but they certainly do not reflect the consensus of the global Anglican Communion. Unequivocally, ECUSA (particularly its General Convention) did not listen to the voice of its own church, that is, its own authority, particularly as heard from Anglicans in the Global South (Africa, Asia, Latin America).
The Protestant Reformation, with its foundations in Enlightenment rationalism, sowed seeds of individualism into Christianity which have born fruit today in the form of some 30,000 Christian denominations (or something like that) on planet earth. Unlike Danny, I still think the answer is in collegial authority (as opposed to papal/magisterial), but I nonetheless abhor the division, which is clearly a result of individualistic interpretation of Scripture.
Yes indeed!!
which have born fruit today in the form of some 30,000 Christian denominations
Info on the misquoting of Barrett.
I nonetheless abhor the division, which is clearly a result of individualistic interpretation of Scripture.
I as well. I also abhor the wide-brush painting of all non-Catholics as those who protest (Protestants). I protest nothing. I seek to be led of the Spirit - if He leads me to the Catholic Church (or anywhere else) then I am pleased to go.
For me, the Spirit of God dwells in the Church, that is, He knows 'where' and 'who' it is. I cannot tell on my own, I must be led there of Him alone.
A good picture of it is when the disciples ask the Lord where He wanted them to prepared for the passover. The Lord gives specific instruction to follow a man bearing a pitcher of water. "Follow him into the house..." Typically you wouldn't have found a man bearing a pitcher of water - this man then stands out. He, the Spirit of God, is unmistakable to the child of God, because the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we ARE the children of God. It is then a matter of obedience to follow Him into the house. I trust you and I are doing just that.
Name Hidden,
You keep bringing up that article, but in fact a gallup poll was done that showed that there were about 30,000 different denominations.
...gallup poll was done that showed that there were about 30,000 different denominations...
I am going to have to look up whether or not your proposed masters degree is accredited... and offers a course in research methods.
Please do a little digging and tell us what the poll considered a denomination.
From one Gallup Poll I could find ... I saw Judaism and Mormonism in the mix. And if Muslims had more than a 3% representation in the population they would have been included too. This one isn't a poll about Christian denominations, it's a poll about religious affiliation which changes the whole foundation of the results.
Please source your poll...
Try reading the article.
30,000 is a projected number, and it includes "denominations" that have identical beliefs, but different jurisdictions. Given the rise of non-denominational churches, each one is considered its own denomination when their beliefs may be completely identical. In fact, every Independent Baptist church is considered its own denomination by Barrett's definition.
Also, para-Christian groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults are counted. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church comprises 223 "denominations" in Barrett's counting.
Name Hidden,
Barrett's belief that there are 8,000 Catholic denominations are false. If you are not in communion with the Pope, then you are not Catholic. Plain and simple. The different rites (Latin and Eastern) are not different denominations. They all have the same beliefs and are all united under the Pope.
The different Protestant denominations (and I include non-denominational in there as well, because even though they say they aren't a denomination, they most definitely are there own denomination. A "non-denominational" group will believe something different than another "non-denominational group") all have different beliefs. They may be slight differences, but they exist. Hence the huge number of Protestant denominations.
Barrett's belief that there are 8,000 Catholic denominations are false.
So you are willing to quote his statisctic erroneously against other Christians?
This makes no sense whatsoever. If you believe his research to be false then you can't use it to support your view.
If you are not in communion with the Pope, then you are not Catholic. Plain and simple. The different rites (Latin and Eastern) are not different denominations. They all have the same beliefs and are all united under the Pope.
And Barrett differentiated on jurisdiction not on beliefs or even practices.
The different Protestant denominations ... They may be slight differences, but they exist. Hence the huge number of Protestant denominations.
You say, 'slight differences', yet they all claim to be under the authority of the Spirit of God and the Son of God, so just like there are a bunch of rites (16 or so) under one pope ... you see where I am going with this?
You can't measure the practice of non-Catholics against the doctrine of the Catholics. You have to measure doctrine on doctrine and practice on practice.
So your adherance to a firm number, based on a growth rate set some years ago and apparently from a flawed research premise, in your view, is still your conclusion?
I don't deny the fragmented state of the Body of Christ here on earth. Not for a moment. But to deny the fragmentation within the whole Body and delegate it to others is unwise and unwarranted.
Sprocket,
"Barrett differentiated on jurisdiction not on beliefs or even practices. "
That's why I think it's flawed.
Then don't use his figures to support your view of the professing Christian world!
At best you practice intellectual dishonesty!
I don't go around retelling his facts about others. I don't like the way he defines a denomination - Wicca (and others) is not Christian in my view.
There are only a few Catholics that I have come across that don't freely cite/support this bloated number - you not being among their number.
If his research isn't representative of Catholics, then it also isn't true about any other group either.
Sprocket,
Like I said, I didn't get my number from him. I got it from a Gallop Poll I saw a while back.
I for one have always found it hipocritical for Catholic conservatives to claim that there are thousands of Protestant dnominations while there is only one Catholic one, while at the same time ignoring the fact that there are many different Protestant "denominations" which are identical in their beleif system.
So according to this logic, 2 identical protestant denominations with different leadership= ununified, disjointed, heretical, and aberrant in the eyes of God while Trinedentine and Vatican II catholics with knives at each other's throats who pay nominal respect to the Pope= good and faithful servants. As such, Eastern right churches with entirely different services and liturgy are considered part of the same denomination as Roman Catholics because of some vague notion of Papal obedience while identical protestant churches are guilty of schism. What gives?
I got it from a Gallop Poll I saw a while back.
Then source it. I couldn't find such a statistic on any poll on Gallup's site. Now I don't have membership to read them all, but nothing showed up as a result of a few searches.
Even at that, I'm sure you've got a great handle on what Gallop defines as a denomination because you haven't even given us that.
We have gotten grossly off topic... but I think it is for good reason.
Back to my original question: What does Hauerwas term as the Church?
From his article refuting a catholic article he says the following:
Before leaving Miscamble's paper, there is one last issue that I hesitate to raise but I think I must. He begins his paper by identifying me as the "Protestant ethicist." Why he thinks such an identification interesting, I have no idea. To say that I am a Protestant is about as meaningful as saying Charles Curran is a Catholic. To be sure, I am a Methodist by training and conviction, but as such I understand myself to be a servant to the church catholic. If contemporary Roman Catholicism is determined to become a denomination in the American context, it becomes all the more important that some of us who carry the shabby history of our disunity try as much as possible to maintain the church's catholicity.
In that larger quote the specific line that caught my eye was:
To be sure, I am a Methodist by training and conviction, but as such I understand myself to be a servant to the church catholic.
Is he referring to all believers, Catholic and otherwise?
I assume consistency across his remarks. If he isn't consistent then he really isn't credible; but the benefit of the doubt will work for now.
Forgot the referencing document...
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1987/v44-1-symposium3.htm
Sprocket and Marc with a C,
You know, it's funny that I wasn't even the original one to make the 30,ooo protestant denominations comment. It was Frank aka "And Also WIth You" who happens to be an Anglican.
That's right a non-Catholic.
And Sprocket I don't know what Hauerwas meant by it. That's for you to research if you are so curious. I know why I posted it. Frank knows what I meant by it.
I know the Book Burner blog has shut down and you guys are left with nowhere to go with your anti-Catholicism, but I am almost at my limit with you.
I'm alright with intelligent debate, but when you troll around and try to find something negative about every post and then don't listen to Truth when you hear, it gets old real quick.
So please, if your only goal is to perpetuate anti-Catholicism, take it elsewhere. I don't have the time for it.
And Sprocket I don't know what Hauerwas meant by it. That's for you to research if you are so curious. I know why I posted it. Frank knows what I meant by it.
Yes, he labeled it correctly. You pulled his comments out of context and made them say what you want them to say. It boggles me why you would do that though seing as you say you welcome intelligent debate; but that's neither here nor there at this point.
I know the Book Burner blog has shut down and you guys are left with nowhere to go with your anti-Catholicism, but I am almost at my limit with you.
"Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you. 1 Peter 3:15"
Keep in mind I was cordial and not so firm right up until you accused me of heresy without any real foundation. We can promptly go to a friendlier spot "pre-accusation", I'd prefer it, really.
I'm alright with intelligent debate, but when you troll around and try to find something negative about every post and then don't listen to Truth when you hear, it gets old real quick.
For starters I haven't found something negative about everything you've posted. I tried to join with you on one post, but you got defensive and I had to make more than one attempt to get it through to you that I wasn't contradicting you, but was adding to your thoughts.
You are forgiven (for your accusation of me - if you want you can support it) and I apologize for any harm done on my part - we shall start anew.
So please, if your only goal is to perpetuate anti-Catholicism, take it elsewhere. I don't have the time for it.
This isn't my goal. Though I find 99.99% of Catholics, I meet or witness being questioned, get to a certain point and come to this same conclusion. I wonder at those who claim to have the truth yet weary when probed for it. Iron sharpens iron, my friend. I'm not so much convincing you against Catholicism as I am making sure that it is what you believe and know it well enough to defend it. Do we not do each other a service in this regard? However did you move from Anglican to Catholic without experiencing this? What broke your estimation of Anglican ways? You've been tested before and you believe you are on the 'right road', then more testing shouldn't be a hardship, should it?
So it's not so much me being anti-Catholic as me being pro-Christ.
I am grateful for those, in my short years, who have questioned me to the point of me saying, "Hey I don't know, and I should know, so help me God I need to know so I can share." Then in the course of time, I find out what I didn't know. Still what I don't know outweighs what I do - I think that's a fair estimate for anyone.
To the accusations of anti-catholicism, I would like to point a thing or two out.
1) You have your blog here, apparently devoted more or less entirely to your experience of the Catholic faith, specifically the militant right-wing kind. If you don't want to talk about your faith, fine, I accept it. However, it is disengenuous of you to come on out and essentially claim that we are being all mean and trolling you for expressing your faith. While you are free to do so, you have to understand that throwing stuff out there for the world to see means you will also have your views challenged. I know that often doesn't sit well with conservative catholics, but the fact of the matter is that you simply cannot sit around and pontificate about your faith and the evils of the modern world and not expect that world to come and bump back.
2) If critisizing certain aspects of your faith makes me an anti-Catholic, than I am guilty as charged. However, this also falls into the philosophical error of hasty generalization. This is the same sort of rhetoric that leads people to claim that any criticism of Israel be interpreted as anti-semetism. If critisizing the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF and the criticism of Israeli colonialism in the name of a greater zion makes me a jew-baiting anti-semite in your book, then again, I am guilty as charged. But I think most neutral, unbiased observers, philosophers and academics would disagree.
3) On the contrary, I have no problem with catholics and catholicism. I was baptized catholic. I am confirmed Episcopalian. I worship with the Quakers. Indeed, in many ways I admire mainstream Catholics and the Orthodox over evangelical protestants and protestant fundamentalists due to their more intelleuctally-oriented experience of faith and historical perspective. However when push comes to shove, radical, violent doctrine and its subsequent apologia is pretty much the same wether protestant or catholic. I don't want to be told what to do by Pat Robertson any more than I want to be told what to do by Pius XII. I just challenge you because I've had my fill with proestant fundies and I need the practice. And, quite frankly, radically conservative catholics are easier in light of their doctrine essentially freezing in the 1530s and actually regressing in the 1870s.
4) Finally, I find it is very disengenuous of you and your ilk to claim persecution on the grounds of your religion. Last time I checked, Christianity was the world's largest religion, with Catholics making up over two thirds of that number. If you don't want to debate religion in a cordial, official, systematic measure, then shut down the comments or don't respond. I have myself noticed in the past that conservative catholics tend to perform best when in an isolated echo chamber and theat they tend to be very thin skinned. Such are the wages of a personality cult I suppose. But please, please, please don't post your intimate religious musings for all the world to see and your favorite bits of Roman apologia and then act all surprised when people like Ssprocket and myself come and call you out. And while this does not apply directly to you, when people are stupid enough to name their blogs such things as "The Book Burner," the "Auto Da Fe (Burning Heretics since 1481)" and the like, it's kind of hard to claim unjust persecution. I am free, if I want, to name my new pro-PLO blog "Auschwitz Chimneysweep," but when the anti-defamation league's blogswarm lands like a 20-ton boulder, I can't go and claim that trolls are hijacking my blog.
Especially not if I spend my time posting masturabatory fantasies of joining the ranks of the new knights tamplar and slaughtering infidels in the holy land for god and pope.
Marc with a C,
Your comments come very close to being deleted. I leave them for sole fact that people can see what you are like.
You need to understand first of all that this is my blog, and I make the rules. If you don't like it. Fine. Go somewhere else.
That being said, It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to troll and try to hijack someone's blog. There is a fine line on your comments and you come dangerously close to crossing it.
I'm perfectly fine with everything I post. It's for the world to see.
If you don't want to hear the Truth, I can't force you and I won't.
Also, to label me or any orthodox Catholic as "right wing" is a misnomer. WE are Catholic. We follow all the Church's teachings, because the Church has the authority handed to it from Jesus. We don't pick and choose whatever commandment we want to follow. We submit fully to Christ.
As for Auto De Fe and the Book Burner, I may read there blogs but they are not my blogs. If you have a disagreement with them, then take it up with them. Don't come over here because you got kicked off of theirs.
I'm curious...
It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to troll and try to hijack someone's blog.
What constitutes hijacking? I'm asking seriously now. I don't think anyone has removed your control of your blog.
Some perhaps some have disagreed with you - perhaps vehemently - but you haven't had this blog taken away from you by force of anyone else.
Hijack
-To stop and rob (a vehicle in transit).
-To steal (goods) from a vehicle in transit.
-To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination.
-To steal from as if by hijacking.
-To swindle or subject to extortion.
I'm just curious ... why you chose the word hijack to describe what you see going on.
Sprocket,
I used it because Marc with a C did. Maybe it was too strong of a word. Oh well.
I of course respect the fact that you can, as the owner of the blog, take your marbles and head for home anytime you want. However, I feel that I made many valid points which, you have yet to answer. I apologize if the language I used offended you. You are of course not responsible for what is posted on blogs which are not your own. But you must also come to understand that many of the views you espouse and defend in your blog are considered hideously backwards by the vast majority of Western societies and can be considered regressive. If you feel unable or are unwilling to answer the charges made on this blog regarding your beliefs, then that is your business. However, if your only defense is to accuse us of anti-catholicism and threaten to ban me, instead of answering the challenge, then that is your prerogative. In the meantime, until such time as I am banned from this blog, I will engage in a civil, polite discourse with you regarding matters of your faith. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then close down the comments section and be prepared to find your posts greeted with naught but stoney silence.
Maybe it was too strong of a word. Oh well.
Please take the following from someone (yours truly) who is completing a Masters degree and receiving competitive phone calls on Doctoral and Ph.D programs... and has had a few moments to observe you.
You are intelligent and most likely get better than average grades ... but that was then and that was undergrad.
If you are to do well and get the most out of a higher education you will have to stop the undergrad habit of regurgitation and be able to defend what you say in a honest, intellectual and professional manner.
You will be shown to be wrong more than once, your reaction to it will determine how well you do and what you take away from your education.
I'm the 2nd youngest in my class and am 30+. I'm already well educated - I have more degrees than any other student in class (I'm finishing #4).
But in reality I'm soooo green...
I've been put in my place in class, in front of others by a professor who's got more education that I and who's gone back to teaching AFTER a full career complete with awards and national accolades.
I'm not always right (really), humility takes the shame out of being so.
PS: I think the word is not too strong it's completely misused ... but hey so long as people are hijacking blogs then its meaning will slowly dilute ... to hear of an aircraft soon won't mean a heck of a lot.
Given that I was the one tossing out the 30,000 reference, I should admit that I was chastened upon reading the article on Barrett's methodology. I read Barrett's 30K figure probably in Operation World, but even Johnstone there questions the meaningfulness of the statistic, preferring to talk about "mega-bloc groupings" or something like that. Using the 30K figure does indeed seem to be a case of apples and oranges.
I was wrong (did I say that out loud?).
In Franciscan (yea, all Christian) humility,
Frank
Post a Comment