Geek Theology
Most people who read my blog are geeks. My guess is that most of them are church geeks like myself who either volunteer or work full time doing IT work for their churches. I think we’re a pretty diverse group as far as denominations go, but I would guess that the largest contingent of church IT geeks who occasionally visit my blog come from some sort of evangelical protestant background. I do know that there is at least one representative from Orthodoxy (hi Andrew) and I recall communicating with at least one Roman Catholic IT geek. I myself belong to an evangelical quasi-Baptist church after having made an exodus from Seventh-day Adventism.
One thing I have noticed is that we as a group tend to talk mostly about geeky things even though we identify ourselves as Christian geeks. I’d like to change that. Geeks need other geeks to discuss theology with.
I have been thinking a great deal lately about tradition (see my food blog) and its tremendous value. I have thought much about what protestants threw out in the protestant reformation and why we did so. There seem to be three groups (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and to a degree Anglican/Episcopal) that retain ties to the traditional heritage of the church. Most others seem to have discarded it without reservation.
The dividing line seems to be the protestant doctrine/teaching of Sola Scriptura. That is, that doctrine should be established purely from the written word of God and not from the traditions, oral or otherwise, of the church. That the written word of God is a tradition kept on paper rather than in our hearts, minds, practices and speech is often left unsaid. At this point I’m not even sure that such a doctrine can be supported scripturally (which would be a fatal flaw). It even seems that Sola Scriptura could be blamed for the creation of heresies like Seventh-day Adventism.
Now I am not saying that I think Catholicism or Orthodoxy are perfect and that we protestants should all jump ship. I believe the reformation was an important and necessary event. But however much benefit it has brought, it has caused at least as much damage. The church is in a multitude of fragments and there is not much that can be done to put the pieces back together. As Paul said in Romans 16:17, “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.”
My intention is not to cause division among us, but I would like to hear from like minded geeky individuals from other backgrounds on why Sola Scriptura does or does not make sense. My hope is that as geeky IT people, your thoughts will be logical and rational.
Thoughts?
Filed under: Christianity, Church |
7 Responses to “Geek Theology”
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Althazaire on One Handed Sandra on We are Experiencing Technical… Zack on One Handed 
brianglass on Eternal Security brianglass on Eternal Security
I’m just a Restorationist (possibly-found-the-NT-church investigating Orthodox) Geek sending props out from sunny Malibu.
You posted on Fr Stephen’s blog, now you’ll never get rid of me.
Here’s something to twist a brain, why would a hardcore (almost futurist) geek like myself start digging Byzantine life? Can someone embrace technology but reject modernism?
Ok, that wasn’t an answer to your question.
So, I’ll say this. Sola Scriptura is an ideal I’ve pursued all my life, but even the originator of the phrase was fan of academics. Wasn’t Luther very excited about the Commentary of David Kimhi (a jew)?
We depend on translators who must make theological judgments (no matter how literal we ask them to be). We have to decide which ancient texts are authoritative. We have to decide where our Lord is being metaphorical “pluck out your right eye if it offends” and where he’s being spiritual “pick up your cross and follow me” and where he’s being literal “this is my body”…
Oh wait, that last one gets us in trouble, right? Some see communion in sacremental terms, others as a remembrance. Hrm. Sola, I don’t know-a.
We have to decide if Corinthians was written TO Corinth and so try to draw Paul’s thinking out of the text, or if its written to all Christians about matters in Corinth in which case women ought to have their heads covered.
Oh, this will get spicy.
Well I am probably more of a geek wanna be than a true geek. My blog is much more theology than technology.
I am in an evangelical protestant church. I had a great set of conversations on this topic with a friend of mine who is Roman Catholic a couple of years ago. He thought (incorrectly) that protestants rejected all authority of tradition. To him and the Roman Catholic view, if I remember correctly, there is tradition and Tradition. Tradition is as authoritative as Scripture within their view. I was able to discuss with him how much I get from studying Augustine and other church fathers, but I see them as persuasive not as authority.
So I agree with sola scriptura, but agree with David that some of those texts are a bit tough. That is where you have to look at the weight of scripture as the best way to interpret scripture. When you are still stuck, you can use tradition to help understand scripture. But, when tradition (or Tradition) is contrary to scripture, it needs to be tossed out.
Also, I am not sure that it is fair to say that sola scriptura “could be blamed” for heresies. It is the bad theology of leaders and noncritical thinking of followers that cause heresies to rise. It would be just as unfair to blame Catholic Tradition for the crimes of Catholic priests. While there might be some contribution, the heretics and priests are still fully culpable for their teachings and actions.
I’d like to offer something regarding Brian’s remark about sola scriptura being “blamed” for some heresies and John’s intuitive response. It is true that one cannot blame Scripture (the words on the page, the inspiration from the Holy Spirit, etc.) for heresies, and it is true that many heresies arise from bad theology and non-critical/non-logical thinkers. I also agree that those who commit the sins of heresy are fully culpable. However, I must say that Brian’s comment about blaming sola scriptura for some heresies does carry some credence. What I understood from Brian’s remark is that it is not Scripture which is at fault (in these “some heresy” cases) but the extremist ideology of using ONLY Scripture with NO other guidance (teachers, parents, tradition, Tradition, etc). Thus the fault lies with the person adopting the extremist position. (Obviously it is NOT the case that all those who embrace sola scriptura follow it to this extreme.) As with everything, moderation is called for. On the one extreme, someone who relies only on Scripture, with no guidance outside himself, makes himself the sole interpreter of God’s word. On the other extreme, to say that Scripture has no value or authority without tradition (or Tradition) is blatantly fallacious. The balance, I believe, lies in recognizing the fact that we are community beings (”It is not good that man should be alone”) and we must work together, charitably, in all things. This cooperation includes recognizing the value of tradition in interpretation (those who “worked out” the meaning of Scripture before our time) and also accepting the celestial authority of Scripture as the Word of God.
I believe I’m seeing your point, but… I think I still lean more toward sola scritpura, than to tradition.
You mention sola scriptura as being possible for heresies… but, isn’t a careful comparison of heresy to scripture the only way to identify something *as* heresy? I may be oversimplifying… and of course, even by saying that, I’m presupposing a sola scriptura-based theology.
I think Catholicism has a lot of great elements, and shares a lot of doctrine in common with Protestanism. At the same time, praying to saints or to Mary, purgatory, literal transubstantiation; those doctrines have always bothered me. Why? Again, I blame sola scriptura.
Now, you mention that scriptural support for sola scriptura would be a fatal flaw. I see your point there, too… somewhat. Eg, it’s always bugged me when people have used the 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” as “proof” that the Bible is true. I agree with the verse, but from an apologetics standpoint, it’s poor form to try to use the source to prove itself like that. Irrational, really.
Yet… I’ve always liked the example in Act 17:11,12: “These [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed… ”
That verse seems to commend them for searching the scriptures to confirm a given teaching; which to me, lends support to a sola scriptura-type theology. Of course, the “scriptures” referred to would be what we call the old testament… so the point is maybe still not air-tight, but… anyways.
Problems with traditions: defense of slavery was a “tradition” in some parts of the church in some eras. The sorts of abuses Luther railed against, traditions… Conversely, the tendency for protestants to demonize the Catholic church was also a tradition for quite some time, and I don’t like that tradition any better than the others.
I guess what I’ve always thought (which doesn’t make it right, but anyways) is that we need some sort of yardstick to measure our traditions against, to make sure the traditions are okay. That yardstick, I’ve always thought, would be the Bible.
So, I guess I’m going to have to wind up on the sola scriptura side. I think if we go too far in following traditions, we put ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to choose which traditions we’ll accept. That means that either WE are the authority, or we need to adopt an “ex cathedra”-type doctrine, and let some other individual (the Pope, the Watchtower society, Joseph Smith, etc) be the authority. I’m not comfortable with those options either… so back to sola scriptura again.
I’d agree that there’s an element of circularity to it. But, if we are going to accept that the Bible is inspired… then I think we need to assume that it is “sufficient”, logically speaking, as a source of doctrine.
Wow. I didn’t mean to type that much. So,I guess that’s my defense of sola scriptura, for what it’s worth. Nothing too original.
All that said… I also agree that it’s far more important for Christians to focus on areas of agreement, than areas of difference. I think there’s a core set of principles that anyone who calls themselves Christian can get behind, be they Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox… so. There’s my $0.02. :D
Phil,
Consider this. Suppose a software company develops a package and of course the documentation to go along with it. Now the users of this package take this documentation and read it and use it to understand the software package itself. Over the years the documentation attains a very high degree of respect. One day a fellow decides he doesn’t really like the company that produced the software, though he still loves the software and the documentation. He suddenly declares that the company is wrong and he is no longer going to interact with the company. He declares that the only way to understand the software package is to read the documentation. He creates a new software movement that he calls sola documentum. Now sadly he has unwittingly disconnected himself from the only people who truly understand the software and how it works internally. Not only that, but he decides to remove a couple chapters of the documentation because he doesn’t think they are quite right (i.e. the apocrypha).
You can deny it all you want, but the Catholic church is the structure that put the Bible itself together. Many of the component parts were already there of course, but the fact that church established the canon is undisputed.
Check this out:
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/scripture-and-the-church/
I guess I’m not trying to unilaterally discount all tradition. I still would maintain that we need a yardstick to measure traditions against. A problem I’d have with your analogy is that I don’t think the Catholic church (or any other church group) is the *manufacturer* of either the product (Redemption, I suppose, would be the product) or “the documentation.” If they really were, then yes; it would seem unwise to “fork” the movement, as it were.
The apocrypha is an interesting point. My understanding is the the OT as seen after the reformation is, if anything, closer to the Jewish canon, and was based on it. The apocryphal books accepted into the OT by the early church weren’t considered canon by the Jewish scholars (I believe).
The canonicity of the apocrypha was reconfirmed at the council of Trent in the 16th century as an explicitly counter-reformation tactic (that’s my reading of the history, but I understand that this is generally accepted as true; if the books were beyond dispute, why “reconfirm” them?). Since the apocrypha was seen by some as supporting purgatory, etc, including it as canon was both and answer and a nod to Sola Scriptura.
I’m not an expert, but I’m not sure I would identify the bodies that assembled the scripture as “THE Catholic church.” The Catholic church as we know it, as I read the history, was codified somewhat after the various books had been more or less accepted. Unless we are *really* going to call Peter the first Pope… In that case, I give up.
But again, I don’t see any way to get around that we need, in general, a way to identify traditions as good, bad, or indifferent. Looking to tradition to confirm traditions seems just as circular as having the Bible prove it’s own veracity. The only option I see is to have the Bible be the tie-breaker… that is, to have it be the authority.
All that said… wasn’t trying to be argumentative… you asked for reasons for or against sola scriptura. ;-)
This is too long already, but I just took a look at the link you posted. I like it, and I think I would say (broadly) that I agree with it; at least, I don’t really *disagree* with it. Where I would nitpick is that I think the main problem is not taking scripture out of its context with the *church*, but taking it out of context with *the rest of scripture*. If the scripture is read in context, and in light of it’s main teachings, I think that will also resolve the sort of misinterpretations that Father Stephen is talking about.
Soooooooo. Whew. I don’t really have the energy to do any more on this topic; but it’s certainly something to think about. I’ll be mulling it over for awhile. Great post, it’s a topic well worth discussing, if for no other reason than to re-examine *why* we think as we do.