Another basic (pre-biblical) choice in theology

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm by Roger E. Olson

Another basic (pre-biblical) choice in theology 2011-08-18T19:30:51-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Lately I’ve been thinking about how different theologies are driven by what I call “pre-biblical” perspectives–choices one makes, often subconsciously, regarding the meaning of biblical materials.

We Protestants like to think that we only get our theology from the Bible. I remember the title of one book I gave away long ago: The Bible without theology. One could write a similarly lame book entitled The Bible without philosophy (and here I mean “philosophy” in a very broad sense of a perspective on reality).

I think sola scriptura is a wonderful idea but an impossible ideal. It’s something to strive for, but no one every completely achieves it. At best we may achieve a degree of “prima scriptura”–Scripture as our ultimate authority–but even then we always approach Scripture with some preconceived ideas. Yes, Scripture can and should help us correct and purify them, but sometimes, at least, these preconceived ideas largely determine how we interpret the Bible.

The one I’m thinking about today is not really philosophical, but it is, it seems, one of those basic choices in theology where the Bible itself doesn’t seem to be of much help inclining us to one side or the other. Of course proponents of both perspectives claim the Bible supports theirs and theirs alone, but in fact that doesn’t seem to be the case. This is another choice that depends on something other than exegesis.

Was the primitive church of the Acts of the Apostles (approximately the first 60 years or so of Christianity) the church in embryo or the fully mature church? Much in ecclesiology depends on how one sees it. Either one sees it “as” the church to be retrieved because it was the golden age of the church in its full flowering OR one sees it “as” the church in infancy destined to grow and mature and change through various processes over time.

If one sees the primitive church as the church in its full glory, he or she will likely be some kind of Restorationist–like the Restorationist churches (Christian, Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ) or the Anabaptists or Pentecostals or most Baptists and other Free Churches. If one sees the primitive church as the church in embryo he or she will likely adhere to some hierarchical and liturgical church (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, some Lutheran, etc.).

Here is another watershed in theology–this time in ecclesiology (but perhaps affecting other areas of theology). Some Christians regard some tradition of Christianity after the primitive church as its natural, divinely ordained and led flowering so that having bishops with authority, highly formalized worship (“bells and smells”) and creedal statements that carry weight almost equal with Scripture itself (if not equal with it) is not only okay but actually good. Other Christians want to strip away all the traditional accretions added to the primitive church and retrieve the church of the apostles as described in the Book of Acts as much as possible.

This was, of course, a major cause of division among Protestants during the Reformation. Luther abhorred those radicals like Carlstadt and the Anabaptists who wanted to demolish statues and stain glass and prayer books and priestly vestments. Luther also strongly disagreed with the Reformed such as Bucer and Zwingli who wanted to discard any idea of bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper because it was a post-NT development.

Luther’s argument (later repeated by the Anglican Hooker and other “high church” theologians) was that everything developed in the tradition of the church after the NT should be kept except what is clearly inconsistent with the Bible. The radical Reformers, however, believed everything should be discarded except what is found in the NT. The Reformed were somewhere in between, often claiming to restore the NT church while consciously compromising with post- and extra-biblical traditions.

How does the Bible itself settle this divide among Protestants? Of course, one can appeal to the ways in which the primitive church is described in the NT, but that hardly proves that it was not placed on a trajectory by God himself on which it changed and developed later. On the other hand, unless the primitive church is viewed as somehow the anchor, if not the full flowering, of what the church should be, how do we discern which post- and extra-biblical traditions are correct? And if we say it is only an anchor, and not the full flowering (as many high church folks do), do we not still have the problem of discernment?

Of course, this is primarily a problem for Protestants; Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics don’t really have a problem, as such, because they view Scripture as part of Tradition. Therefore, it is simply a given of their ecclesiologies, that development of the primitive church into something that doesn’t look very much like it is good. The same Holy Spirit who guided the church to create the canon of Holy Scripture guided the church to create its liturgical and hierarchical structures and practices.

Protestants claim that we follow the principle of sola scriptura or at least prima scriptura. But how does Scripture help with this particular issue? Admittedly, one cannot find “bells and smells” in the primitive church, but does that necessarily mean we shouldn’t ring bells and use incense in worship? (I’m using “bells and smells” here as shorthand for high liturgical worship such as one often finds in Anglican churches.) And yet, if we don’t view the primitive churhc, as described in Acts and the rest of the NT, as normative for ecclesiology today, how do we discern what is and what isn’t “of God,” so to speak?

And yet, Restorationists of all kinds have failed fully to retrieve and recreate the primitive church. I can’t think of a single denomination or even congregation that has managed to function exactly like the primitive church as described in Acts and the rest of the NT. We’ve all added or subtracted things to/from that: church buildings or musical instruments or abolition of tongues or prophecy or one of the offices mentioned, etc.

It seems, then, that this is another one of those basic choices in theology where Scripture doesn’t offer much help. Of course, I know which side of this continental divide in ecclesiology I’m on, but I admit it has more to do with temperament and sociology and politics and other extra-biblical concerns and commitments than any particular passage of Scripture I can point to. I am firmly commited to the idea that power corrupts and therefore am wary of hierarchies of any kind. But that just means I might have trouble with apostles as well as bishops! The primitive church certainly had some kind of hierarchy. I’m not sure we can really retrieve whatever that was for today and so I’m satisfied (uncomfortably) to muddle through with some kind of compromised Restorationism in the Free Church model. I like the fact that if the leaders of my church are corrupt or heretical or abusive I can just go find another church to join or start my own! On the other hand, I realize how truly non-NT that is. (For those of you who have gotten this far and have a tendency to take things I write too seriously, please remember the title of my blog–“musings!”)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 26, 2010

More about the basic choice in theology (voluntarism versus realism)

Next Post

January 2, 2011 An imaginary conversation between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Four beasts rose from the sea—one like a lion with eagle's wings, one like a bear, one like a leopard, and a fourth terrifying beast. What did these represent?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Four kingdoms Four kings Four judgments Four ages