Sola Emergent: The Emerging Church and Revelation - Scripture is Reaction Part 2

Previously, we discussed how the Emerging Church is beginning to question the notion of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone!). As we pointed out, this is due to their analysis of culture. Take Phyllis Tickle's recent book, "The Great Emergence," where her longest chapter deals with cultural trends that have led to postmodernism. As a result of these cultural trends, we must reevaluate Christianity itself. Therefore, the Emerging Church gets it's theology after analyzing culture rather than beginning with theology and engaging culture.

The Emerging Church began with issues like postmodernism, story, narrative, the roles of women, women in ministry, and homosexuality. These issues, which they took a more progressive stance on, has led to their reevaluation of both salvation and Scripture. And finally, after years of short statements and unclarity about where the Emerging conversation was going regarding the doctrine of Scripture, the Emerging Church is beginning to show it's true colors.

In essence, they are questioning, or perhaps have denied, Sola Scriptura. This was inevitable. Anytime we begin with culture and not Scripture, we are bound to reject the very thing that offends culture. Therefore, the Emerging Church has catered to society rather than to God. Here, then, is the by product of compromise: Christians give up everything while the world gains it all.

Nic Paton has written an article at the Emergent Village dealing with this issue. He essentially argues that Sola Scriptura has past it's prime. It is no longer valid.

Paton begins his argument by pointing out that the doctrine of "Sola Scripture is a reaction." He argues the following:

One of the key features of the Reformation was the rejection of the papacy and the refocusing on scripture as the final source of authority. As radical as these changes were, many aspects of reform did not deconstruct the prevailing Orthodoxy, but rather switched it wholesale. So the notion of infallibility which had attended the Pope, we transferred onto the Bible. No longer was a man, or a position, the final word on revelation, but a book.

We would honor history to bear in mind the extent to which the Catholic Church moved away from basic biblical values; indulgences, inquisitions, and the corruption by total power as brief examples. It is not surprising then that the reformers veered to opposite extremes, the extent to which most now appreciate. And we need to bear in mind that what Luther meant by “sola scriptura” is almost certainly not what we have come to see it as meaning after our 500-year journey though modernity.

In hindsight then, Sola scriptura was and is an over-reaction. Nonetheless, the pendulum is swinging, and we must do our informed utmost to be true to the fullest possible revelation as we forge a new age of God’s rule.

Paton raises a few good points, but he misses the whole point of Sola Scriptura in the first place. Yes the doctrine is a reaction. But what is it a reaction against? Man. For too long had man become the arbiter of truth. Man set up popes and councils to decide what was from God and what wasn't. Man stood in the way of God's revelation. As long as the Pope was the final word on the meaning of Scripture while the common man was not free to read God's written Word for themselves in their own language, the gospel would remain hidden. The problem was with man and nothing else.

Therefore, the Reformers "reacted" by pointing us to God as the divine arbiter of truth. The Reformers understood that God had revealed Himself, not through the Pope, through the Church, through ecclesiastic history, or even through the Reformers themselves, but through God's Word.

Phyllis Tickle's latest book repeatedly asks the question, where is the authority? She argues that after the Reformation the authority was Scripture. But Tickle is wrong. Since we are entering the Great Emergence and leaving the era of the Great Reformation, the source of authority has changed. The Bible and Bible alone argument no longer is valid, she argues.

But the Reformation did not just say that Scripture is the final authority. Rather, they said that God is the final authority and it is through Scripture that He has spoken. If the Reformers were living now they would have the same battle-cry. The problem they would have with Tickle, Paton, and the rest of the Emerging movement is that they have given authority back to man which is the same problem they faced in the 16th Century.

To the Reformers, this understanding of who was authoritative led to two key developments. First, the Reformers, especially Martin Luther, emphasized the priesthood of believers. This put special emphasis on the individual to be faithful, to pray, to seek forgiveness, to repent, to lead, to study, and to grow in Christ. This took authority away from the Church.

The second key ingredient in understanding this issue is the emphasis on translating Scripture in the language of the people. Wycliff and Tyndale died for this quest, but Luther and others saw it's completion. They wanted the people to be able to read Scripture in order that they might search and find the truth for themselves. They were confident that whenever people were confronted with the Word of God, they would immediately reject the word of man.

So yes, the Reformation cry of Sola Scriptura was a reaction. They reacted to the abuse of man who had robbed God of His authority and we are doing the same thing today. The Reformation was not an "overreaction" but the right reaction.

Paton's concluding words in this argument are frightful.

In hindsight then, Sola scriptura was and is an over-reaction. Nonetheless, the pendulum is swinging, and we must do our informed utmost to be true to the fullest possible revelation as we forge a new age of God’s rule.

Notice the same mistake he is making that the Reformers reacted to. Authority, during the Dark Ages and on the eve of the Reformation, was in the hands of man. Man is and remains corrupt who would rather serve themselves than each other or God. Therefore, truth became corrupt because the truth was not known. Likewise the Emerging Church is handing the authority back over man. Why? Because man hates what God has to say (John 3:17ff).

"We must do our informed utmost to be true to the fullest possible revelation?" What does that mean? It means that man will once again become the authoritative voice and God will be robbed of His divinity. Man, then, becomes God, excercising authority.

The Emerging Church must make this argument because to win this battle means that they are legitimately Christian. To loose this battle would call into question everything they stand for. If God is the authority then all of the conversations taking place must end. God has spoken and His Word is final. To right Scripture off as significant but not the final Word robs God of His authority. Who are you, o man, to call into question the Sovereignty and the Will of God!?

Like Luther, we must stand on the authority of Scripture. At the Diet of Worms, Luther was asked to recant what he had written about man taking authority from God and corrupting His words. Facing what would have seemed like certain death exclaimed:

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other

Likewise today, we must have a similar battle-cray. Unless we are convinced by Scripture and sound reason, not by men or conversations of men, our conscience is captive to the Word of God. We cannot and will not recant anything for to go against our conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help us. Here we stand, we can do no other.