So I went to see this psychologist, who was also a Uniting Church Minister.
The fellow listened to my account of the situation rather nervously before finally asking me “why do you think you are here?” I thought about it for a second and replied; “I think both you and my president believe there are no answers to my questions and so you wish to ‘equip’ me to deal with a world full of unanswered questions.”
He was working with a particular theory of counselling. This theory assumes that the client’s angst is caused by the tension between an irrational presupposition (eg: everyone I know must like me) and reality (eg: some people don’t). In other words, he assumed that my angst was caused by my struggle with irrational expectations. In this case the irrational expectation was that I hoped to know truth, and he assumed this was not possible!
Aside from the amazing assumption that one can never know the truth (and that wanting to be able to know truth is irrational), this fellow failed to see that his own argument contradicted itself. In effect he, and others, were suggesting that it is irrational to expect the ultimate goal of reason to exist and be accessible. Sort of like saying “there are no absolutes … except this one.”
Incidently, he concluded that there were no psychological 'issues' in my case and that my problem was a theological one. I was glad somebody could see that! But, since the bulk of the cost of the sessions were to come out of my own pocket I refused to pursue them further. I wrote a letter to my president to say that psychology was not going to answer my questions.
Next: The Reasons for My Dilemma
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Bothering Friends and Presidents
From the time of my return to Melbourne till about Christmas, I vigorously pursued the answers to these questions with anyone who would talk to me about it.
Soon, however, my persistent questions of the Lutheran position made my fellow pastors uncomfortable and they began to withdraw from our company and friendship. At the advice of my president I stopped worrying other pastors with my questions (save the few he had instructed me to talk to) and followed his instructions as faithfully as I could.
I maintained e-mail contact with two seminary professors but neither convinced me of anything substantial. I should add here that one of them produced some very clever and inventive ways of justifying the Lutheran claims to catholicity, even if they didn’t stand up to the final ‘how do you know?’ question. The trouble was that he was almost the only Lutheran in the world who held that position, so it couldn't be taken seriously as a 'Lutheran' position. I also kept up some conversation with my confessor father and my zone counsellor. Neither had any answers save some amateur psychology which dodged the questions altogether.
My district president offered his own theory that I was merely experiencing one of the many (expected) crisis in a young pastor’s ministry. He also hinted that my relationship with my father might have influenced my thinking. He ‘strongly advised’ that I see a psychologist (a specific man he recommended) for a while to sort things out.
Next: The Visit to the Psychologist
Soon, however, my persistent questions of the Lutheran position made my fellow pastors uncomfortable and they began to withdraw from our company and friendship. At the advice of my president I stopped worrying other pastors with my questions (save the few he had instructed me to talk to) and followed his instructions as faithfully as I could.
I maintained e-mail contact with two seminary professors but neither convinced me of anything substantial. I should add here that one of them produced some very clever and inventive ways of justifying the Lutheran claims to catholicity, even if they didn’t stand up to the final ‘how do you know?’ question. The trouble was that he was almost the only Lutheran in the world who held that position, so it couldn't be taken seriously as a 'Lutheran' position. I also kept up some conversation with my confessor father and my zone counsellor. Neither had any answers save some amateur psychology which dodged the questions altogether.
My district president offered his own theory that I was merely experiencing one of the many (expected) crisis in a young pastor’s ministry. He also hinted that my relationship with my father might have influenced my thinking. He ‘strongly advised’ that I see a psychologist (a specific man he recommended) for a while to sort things out.
Next: The Visit to the Psychologist
The Third and Fourth
Having said this about synod, (that is; that it’s infallibility is questionable at best), there are some who simply don’t believe there is an infallible way to know truth, and so they advocate synod as a good sociological method to arrive at a mutual decision. This was my third answer.
Synod then takes the role of a decision making machine which expresses the will of the people of the LCA and nothing more. Presumably then, the LCA as a body, becomes nothing more than a cooperating body of people who confess similar things. Hence the vote at synod was treated, by some, as a test to see if there were still enough of us in agreement to maintain the LCA as one synod.
People with this view either find their ‘infallible’ truth somewhere else (see above under Sola Scriptura), from their own subjective convictions, or deny that there is any such thing as truth which is accessible to us. To the latter group, (who deny we can know anything for sure), the LCA becomes simply one of many valid expressions of humanity’s search for God. No absolute truth here.
The Fourth Answer, though less frequent, is that the person is convinced they know truth and they base their lives on this truth. It should be obvious by now why this answer did not impress me.
Besides, as a friend once said, preaching a truth based on a personal conviction has only a legitimate audience of one. That is; If I am deciding what is true for me, then I may only preach this truth to the one person it is true for. Me!
I’m sorry to have spent so much time on the arguments I have been wrestling with. I admit I wrote them more for my own benefit than anything else. Now I return to the story.
Next: Bothering Friends and Presidents
Synod then takes the role of a decision making machine which expresses the will of the people of the LCA and nothing more. Presumably then, the LCA as a body, becomes nothing more than a cooperating body of people who confess similar things. Hence the vote at synod was treated, by some, as a test to see if there were still enough of us in agreement to maintain the LCA as one synod.
People with this view either find their ‘infallible’ truth somewhere else (see above under Sola Scriptura), from their own subjective convictions, or deny that there is any such thing as truth which is accessible to us. To the latter group, (who deny we can know anything for sure), the LCA becomes simply one of many valid expressions of humanity’s search for God. No absolute truth here.
The Fourth Answer, though less frequent, is that the person is convinced they know truth and they base their lives on this truth. It should be obvious by now why this answer did not impress me.
Besides, as a friend once said, preaching a truth based on a personal conviction has only a legitimate audience of one. That is; If I am deciding what is true for me, then I may only preach this truth to the one person it is true for. Me!
I’m sorry to have spent so much time on the arguments I have been wrestling with. I admit I wrote them more for my own benefit than anything else. Now I return to the story.
Next: Bothering Friends and Presidents
The Second Lutheran Answer
The second answer I received to the question “How do I know truth?” was; “We decide in Synod.” There are two variations of this answer (which make up two of my four answers) so I’ll treat them separately. The first of the two treats synod as the final authority of our church.
Invested in synod is all the authority of the LCA and so, if the LCA has any authority to decide, the synod exercises that authority.
When one of my colleagues asked his fellow pastors “What gives this synod the right to decide this issue?” He received the answer: “Synod gives synod the right!” In other words, the LCA gives itself the right to decide what Scripture says. The assumption behind this is that the LCA possesses the authority of the whole church to make such decisions. Yet the only evidence or argument we can use to support the LCA’s claim to his authority is the LCA’s own interpretation of Scripture.
I began to wonder not only if the LCA is right in claiming such authority, but is the LCA even a legitimate part of the Church? To justify the validity of any claim made by the LCA one needs to rely on that very ‘claimed’ authority. Of course, this would be true of any church group. The implication is that the authority and infallibility of any group’s decisions is reliant on the infallibility of its decision making process, and of those involved in that process. The problem is that the LCA deliberately and openly rejects any notion of its own infallibility. Yet it builds its ‘infallible truths’ on this fallible foundation!
There were some who insisted that the pastors alone, as ordained apostolic ministers, had been entrusted to uphold the truth and not the lay delegates who also voted at synod. There were those who advocated an ‘every member’ ballot on the matter, rather than the vote at synod. But all of these suggested methods of reaching a decision, including the one actually used, beg the question: “Does the LCA have the authority to make such a decision?” If we decide the LCA has no such authority, we must ask: “By what authority does the LCA presume to uphold the doctrines it does currently.”
Only if we could show that the LCA has the authority to determine the clear Word of God definitively in this matter can we begin to discuss the proper method the LCA could use to come to this decision. I never got that far, because I never received an answer to the first question.
Next: The Third and Fourth Answers
Invested in synod is all the authority of the LCA and so, if the LCA has any authority to decide, the synod exercises that authority.
When one of my colleagues asked his fellow pastors “What gives this synod the right to decide this issue?” He received the answer: “Synod gives synod the right!” In other words, the LCA gives itself the right to decide what Scripture says. The assumption behind this is that the LCA possesses the authority of the whole church to make such decisions. Yet the only evidence or argument we can use to support the LCA’s claim to his authority is the LCA’s own interpretation of Scripture.
I began to wonder not only if the LCA is right in claiming such authority, but is the LCA even a legitimate part of the Church? To justify the validity of any claim made by the LCA one needs to rely on that very ‘claimed’ authority. Of course, this would be true of any church group. The implication is that the authority and infallibility of any group’s decisions is reliant on the infallibility of its decision making process, and of those involved in that process. The problem is that the LCA deliberately and openly rejects any notion of its own infallibility. Yet it builds its ‘infallible truths’ on this fallible foundation!
There were some who insisted that the pastors alone, as ordained apostolic ministers, had been entrusted to uphold the truth and not the lay delegates who also voted at synod. There were those who advocated an ‘every member’ ballot on the matter, rather than the vote at synod. But all of these suggested methods of reaching a decision, including the one actually used, beg the question: “Does the LCA have the authority to make such a decision?” If we decide the LCA has no such authority, we must ask: “By what authority does the LCA presume to uphold the doctrines it does currently.”
Only if we could show that the LCA has the authority to determine the clear Word of God definitively in this matter can we begin to discuss the proper method the LCA could use to come to this decision. I never got that far, because I never received an answer to the first question.
Next: The Third and Fourth Answers
The First Lutheran Answer
There seemed to be four main Lutheran answers. At least, I heard four different answers from Lutherans.
Lutheran Answer One:
That the guarantee of truth is the clear Word of God in Scripture. Many Lutherans hold that Tradition, reason, the church, etc have some function of guidance BUT, they remain convinced that the only infallible guarantee of truth is the ‘clear’ Word of Scripture.
The emphasis on clear is important since, if anything about Scripture is unclear, then the reliability of any interpretation is only as good as that of the interpreter him/herself. In other words Lutherans must claim, if they hold this theory, that Scripture is so clear it needs no interpretation.
The problem, of course, is that some Scriptures are plainly not obeyed (in their literal sense) in the modern context, nor were they in ancient contexts. Imagine if we all advocated stoning of adulterers? Yet that particular Scripture is clear!
Now Lutherans claim we must read all of Scripture together in order to discern it’s clarity, and that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ That is, the clear parts of Scripture interpret the unclear parts. Then we must ask; “Which part of Scripture applies to which other part?”. To make any such judgement is actually an act of interpretation! To interpret any text in any way that is contrary to the simplest, literal meaning is to apply and claim the authority to interpret. Something that Lutherans deny any human can claim.
But let’s say we did simply apply Scripture to interpret Scripture and came up with an answer to a current question. We could only claim whatever reliability the interpreter has as our guarantee of that answer. Did he ‘infallibly’ apply Scripture? Did he ‘infallibly’ discern what Scripture was saying in both the text he applied and the one he applied it to? Did he allow any previous training or prejudice get in the way of the ‘clear’ Word. The reality is, as soon as anyone picks up a book they interpret it.
Let us leave that aside for now and talk about the logical problems of Sola Scriptura.
The first question one can ask when our theology demands that we base everything on Sola Scriptura is: “Why?” Why insist on Scripture alone? From where do we gain this principle? And on what basis do we make it the founding principle of our theology?
There is no such principle in Scripture itself, nor can one be derived from Scripture by inference. So where else can we find support for this assertion? If we seek to prove ‘Sola Scriptura’ we can hardly go outside of the very Scriptures we are claiming to hold ‘solely’ to in order to prove our principle. That would be to contravene the very principle we are trying to prove!
It should be said that Lutherans attempt to ‘prove’ Sola Scriptura by appealing to texts which teach the reliability and necessity of Scripture, but fail to prove the only controversial part of their favourite maxim. That is, Lutherans can produce no evidence to support the ‘sola’ in ‘sola Scriptura’.
The second question is “Which Scriptures?” Do we include the deuterocanonical books, or even the Old Testament? Do we, with Luther, reject James as ‘an epistle of straw’ or Revelations? If we go along with the modern Protestant assumption that whatever is included in a Bible we buy is genuine, we are still faced with the question: “Why do we not include the 7 deuterocononical books? Even if, in a fit of magnanimous condescension, we decide to accept the full Western canon, we are still faced with the question: ‘Why?’ Especially in the face of the (slightly larger) Eastern canons. But even leaving aside all the canons in the world, we must ask why we would trust ANY of these writings as infallible?
Some Lutherans (a very few) hold to a theory of the ‘self assertion’ of the Christian canon. That is, that the canon asserted itself within the church community over the centuries. This theory is riddled with problems but, like most falsehood, contains a small part of the truth. There is no doubt that the Church cannot create the infallible Scriptures solely by human authority or effort, but she does recognise them by the divine authority Christ has given her.
It is no use asserting the ontological infallibility of Scripture without also asking the epistemological question. That is, we know God’s word is infallible by definition, but how do we know what is His word and what is not? This was probably my biggest question of that synod.
Some Lutherans like to argue that we simply accept the books that ‘everyone’ accepts. The problem with this, of course, is that Marcion together with many others through the ages have not accepted the canon as it is! Also, after Luther, many others cast doubt on James, Revelation, and the like because they contradict their own theology.
We have seen this principle at work in some of the arguments for Women’s ordination. Namely the ‘interpolation’ argument. That is, that two verses of 1 Cor 14 were actually an editorial note and were later included in the canon. It must not, (say the adherents of this theory), be regarded as apostolic, nor as ‘Scriptural’. And so, without anyone with authority to define the canon, it is whittled down to a few non-offensive passages somewhere in Galatians. No clear truth to be had there.
There are many more things to be said about the Protestant problem with Scripture, but I hope to cover the basics in the following questions.
Next: The Second Lutheran Answer
Lutheran Answer One:
That the guarantee of truth is the clear Word of God in Scripture. Many Lutherans hold that Tradition, reason, the church, etc have some function of guidance BUT, they remain convinced that the only infallible guarantee of truth is the ‘clear’ Word of Scripture.
The emphasis on clear is important since, if anything about Scripture is unclear, then the reliability of any interpretation is only as good as that of the interpreter him/herself. In other words Lutherans must claim, if they hold this theory, that Scripture is so clear it needs no interpretation.
The problem, of course, is that some Scriptures are plainly not obeyed (in their literal sense) in the modern context, nor were they in ancient contexts. Imagine if we all advocated stoning of adulterers? Yet that particular Scripture is clear!
Now Lutherans claim we must read all of Scripture together in order to discern it’s clarity, and that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ That is, the clear parts of Scripture interpret the unclear parts. Then we must ask; “Which part of Scripture applies to which other part?”. To make any such judgement is actually an act of interpretation! To interpret any text in any way that is contrary to the simplest, literal meaning is to apply and claim the authority to interpret. Something that Lutherans deny any human can claim.
But let’s say we did simply apply Scripture to interpret Scripture and came up with an answer to a current question. We could only claim whatever reliability the interpreter has as our guarantee of that answer. Did he ‘infallibly’ apply Scripture? Did he ‘infallibly’ discern what Scripture was saying in both the text he applied and the one he applied it to? Did he allow any previous training or prejudice get in the way of the ‘clear’ Word. The reality is, as soon as anyone picks up a book they interpret it.
Let us leave that aside for now and talk about the logical problems of Sola Scriptura.
The first question one can ask when our theology demands that we base everything on Sola Scriptura is: “Why?” Why insist on Scripture alone? From where do we gain this principle? And on what basis do we make it the founding principle of our theology?
There is no such principle in Scripture itself, nor can one be derived from Scripture by inference. So where else can we find support for this assertion? If we seek to prove ‘Sola Scriptura’ we can hardly go outside of the very Scriptures we are claiming to hold ‘solely’ to in order to prove our principle. That would be to contravene the very principle we are trying to prove!
It should be said that Lutherans attempt to ‘prove’ Sola Scriptura by appealing to texts which teach the reliability and necessity of Scripture, but fail to prove the only controversial part of their favourite maxim. That is, Lutherans can produce no evidence to support the ‘sola’ in ‘sola Scriptura’.
The second question is “Which Scriptures?” Do we include the deuterocanonical books, or even the Old Testament? Do we, with Luther, reject James as ‘an epistle of straw’ or Revelations? If we go along with the modern Protestant assumption that whatever is included in a Bible we buy is genuine, we are still faced with the question: “Why do we not include the 7 deuterocononical books? Even if, in a fit of magnanimous condescension, we decide to accept the full Western canon, we are still faced with the question: ‘Why?’ Especially in the face of the (slightly larger) Eastern canons. But even leaving aside all the canons in the world, we must ask why we would trust ANY of these writings as infallible?
Some Lutherans (a very few) hold to a theory of the ‘self assertion’ of the Christian canon. That is, that the canon asserted itself within the church community over the centuries. This theory is riddled with problems but, like most falsehood, contains a small part of the truth. There is no doubt that the Church cannot create the infallible Scriptures solely by human authority or effort, but she does recognise them by the divine authority Christ has given her.
It is no use asserting the ontological infallibility of Scripture without also asking the epistemological question. That is, we know God’s word is infallible by definition, but how do we know what is His word and what is not? This was probably my biggest question of that synod.
Some Lutherans like to argue that we simply accept the books that ‘everyone’ accepts. The problem with this, of course, is that Marcion together with many others through the ages have not accepted the canon as it is! Also, after Luther, many others cast doubt on James, Revelation, and the like because they contradict their own theology.
We have seen this principle at work in some of the arguments for Women’s ordination. Namely the ‘interpolation’ argument. That is, that two verses of 1 Cor 14 were actually an editorial note and were later included in the canon. It must not, (say the adherents of this theory), be regarded as apostolic, nor as ‘Scriptural’. And so, without anyone with authority to define the canon, it is whittled down to a few non-offensive passages somewhere in Galatians. No clear truth to be had there.
There are many more things to be said about the Protestant problem with Scripture, but I hope to cover the basics in the following questions.
Next: The Second Lutheran Answer
I Return to Melbourne
I returned to Melbourne lost and confused.
Logically, an infallible truth needs an infallible guarantee. The infallible guarantee Lutherans appeal to and rely on is the ‘clear’ Word of God. My problem was that I doubted my ability to infallibly interpret the Word, and I doubted everyone else’s ability to do the same.
So several possibilities presented themselves;
1. There is no truth, everything is relative
2. The is truth, but we can never be sure we know it
3. There is truth, and God has provided a means of knowing what it is.
The first answer is meaningless. In philosophy, science and theology it simply does not hold water. Besides, if it is true, it would logically disprove itself! On a practical level, it would mean that I could no longer preach and teach, claim to know truth, nor hold any sure hope of salvation.
The second answer is meaningless since it is (practically speaking) the same as the first. What is the use of absolute truth if our knowledge of it is relative? And how can we even assert that such truth is absolute if we can only ever know it exists by relative means? This is the main logical problem with the ‘Scripture alone’ argument. While never doubting Scripture’s infallibility, what use would an infallible Scripture be without infallible means to interpret it?
For anything in life and faith to ‘work’, to make sense, to provide surety, we must conclude that the third option is the only option. The other choices logically result in nihilism. (Which is why Protestant systems never make sense, they can’t make sense!)
Besides, what sort of God would set out to save His people and provide salvation for them, but leave them uncertain as to how to receive His gift of eternal life, unsure even if they are on the right track?
A God who says, “I came to save you, but I’m not going to show you how exactly – have a guess and we’ll all find out on judgement day” can hardly be described as a gracious God.
Assuming that there is truth revealed by God and that we can know it certainly, the next question is: “How do we know truth?” Several answers presented themselves immediately and, being a Lutheran pastor desirous of retaining my excellent friends and occupation, I considered the various ‘Lutheran’ answers first and foremost.
Next: The First Lutheran Answer
Logically, an infallible truth needs an infallible guarantee. The infallible guarantee Lutherans appeal to and rely on is the ‘clear’ Word of God. My problem was that I doubted my ability to infallibly interpret the Word, and I doubted everyone else’s ability to do the same.
So several possibilities presented themselves;
1. There is no truth, everything is relative
2. The is truth, but we can never be sure we know it
3. There is truth, and God has provided a means of knowing what it is.
The first answer is meaningless. In philosophy, science and theology it simply does not hold water. Besides, if it is true, it would logically disprove itself! On a practical level, it would mean that I could no longer preach and teach, claim to know truth, nor hold any sure hope of salvation.
The second answer is meaningless since it is (practically speaking) the same as the first. What is the use of absolute truth if our knowledge of it is relative? And how can we even assert that such truth is absolute if we can only ever know it exists by relative means? This is the main logical problem with the ‘Scripture alone’ argument. While never doubting Scripture’s infallibility, what use would an infallible Scripture be without infallible means to interpret it?
For anything in life and faith to ‘work’, to make sense, to provide surety, we must conclude that the third option is the only option. The other choices logically result in nihilism. (Which is why Protestant systems never make sense, they can’t make sense!)
Besides, what sort of God would set out to save His people and provide salvation for them, but leave them uncertain as to how to receive His gift of eternal life, unsure even if they are on the right track?
A God who says, “I came to save you, but I’m not going to show you how exactly – have a guess and we’ll all find out on judgement day” can hardly be described as a gracious God.
Assuming that there is truth revealed by God and that we can know it certainly, the next question is: “How do we know truth?” Several answers presented themselves immediately and, being a Lutheran pastor desirous of retaining my excellent friends and occupation, I considered the various ‘Lutheran’ answers first and foremost.
Next: The First Lutheran Answer
A Letter to A Friend
Just before the July 2000 Synod I had written the following in an e-mail to a pastor friend.
Next: I returned to Melbourne
I've been thinking through the 'catholic' thing.
I assume of course that you realise by 'catholic' I mean the one true, genuine. orthodox, faith passed down from the apostles. Follow me here for a few lines:
If we are in the Lutheran church there are three main ways we can talk of the 'catholicity' of our church:
1. We ARE the true catholic church on earth (Proposed by most dogmatics texts I've read by Lutherans)
2. Being Lutheran is the best way to BE catholic
3. Who cares about catholicity, we decide what is true anyway!
I used to be pretty stuck on the second option. But I'm thinking it through more and more now. If the Lutheran Church is the BEST way to be catholic, then at what point does it cease being the BEST way to be catholic? Women's Ordination, or long before that? And if so.. which church then 'becomes' the best way to be the true catholic church.This presents another problem. If I can simply choose a 'BETTER' church to best be catholic, then what makes the particular group the 'right' one? My choice? My decision that they are closest to what I perceive the 'true catholic church' to be? I know I could suggest that I either create a group, or join a group that reflect what I believe is the truth. But this is basically saying I can decide what is true or not by my own understanding. If this is the case, how am I different from any of the splinter groups from the 1960's, or even the sectarian/Congregationalist groups about the place?The apostolic succession thing doesn't seem to hold much water if it is used in isolation to communion with Rome. It is either a succession of teaching (in which case we cannot deviate from whatever is apostolic teaching - which again seems determinative) or it is a living apostolic authority passed down from the apostles time to this day. The 'catholicity' of a succession of 'apostolic teaching' seems determinative (if that is the right word). And yet, to claim some sort of 'apostolic succession' without any real communion with the church from which it all originates makes me wonder about it's catholicity. The fact that some bishop happened to lay hands on another hardly holds any water if (for example) he has been excommunicated by the church before the event. The apostolic authority is surely void as soon as the bishop is condemned by the church which gave him that authority declares he is teaching heresy? Surely to be valid, the apostolic successor must be in communion with the church from which he claims succession?
Let me know where my arguments went off the rails please?
Thanks
Peter.
Next: I returned to Melbourne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)