Toby J. Sumpter's Blog, page 92

A Plea & A Sketch of an Argument on Icons

There are many reasons people find themselves attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but one of them is the presence and veneration of icons. Entering a sanctuary full of religious art can seem visually stunning and feel refreshingly spiritual compared to kitschy banners or television screens or hospital-blank walls. For the westerner, icons suggest a certain “eastern” and ancient feel to worship. This can seem far more authentic.

The Orthodox since the 9th century have also been very ready to claim the rhetorical high ground of being faithful to the doctrine of the incarnation and embracing the materiality of salvation. God became a man. He literally, physically embraced the created world, matter, and was conceived in the womb of Mary. Therefore aesthetics matter, beauty matters, the material world matters, and even more significantly, because of the incarnation, matter is capable of mediating the presence of God to our senses, thereby granting people a share in the Divine life through prayer and contemplation.

All too often, the unsuspecting and untrained Protestant, sucking the fumes of modernity and postmodernity, finds himself starving for a more fully human experience of God and takes the bait and swims the Bosporus.

There is much here we might discuss, and many books have been written for and against the making and venerating of icons, including one I’ve just been scouring, the Roman Catholic Alain Besancon’s The Forbidden Image (about which more below). But let me just begin with a simple plea and then sketch one argument against the making and venerating of icons of Christ.

First the plea: do some serious study of the actual issues and arguments from both sides. This will take some time to do well. But if you are currently a Protestant considering taking the plunge, do yourself, your family, your current church family, and the catholic tradition the honor of really studying this topic. Can you summarize John of Damascus’ defense of icons? Can you explain where his defense is flawed (according to the Orthodox)? Can you summarize the iconoclastic argument of Constantine V? And what was flawed about his argument? Now sketch the contributions of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople and Theodore the Studite (abbot of the monastery at Studium). What did the Second Council of Nicaea actually decide? Be specific and trace the conclusion from Nicaea, Chalcedon, through John of Damascus, Nicephorus and Theodore. Now, are you familiar with the Western Carolingian response to the Second Council of Nicaea? Evaluate the claims in light of what you’ve already considered. Do your Protestant heritage the honor of reading the original Reformers on images. Summarize the views of Luther, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Calvin on the making and veneration of images. Finally, do some reading on the history of iconography itself. How widespread were the use of icons in the first three centuries? Does that matter? When the icon “triumphed” after Second Nicaea what stylistic changes did the icon undergo between then and the modern day? What does that mean?

So much for my plea. And related to all of this, spend time as you read and study comparing your notes with trusted counselors and friends, not just people who will smile and nod, but the kind of people who challenge you to think critically and carefully.

Now for the sketch of an argument.

In a recent blog post, Father Stephen Freeman extols the virtues of icons emphasizing the popular notion (going back to John of Damascus) that icons affirm the goodness of creation, but more specifically, that they (and all creation) participate in God’s divine life because of the incarnation. Therefore, Freeman claims, the veneration of icons is an invitation to communion with God, and by extension, an invitation to communion with God through the rest of creation. All of creation is “icon and sacrament” Freeman informs us.

Now it may be that Freeman is only waxing poetic and somewhat ecstatic, and doesn’t intend to explain the actual Orthodox dogma on icons. But the fact remains that at least part of what Freeman is extolling is explicitly not accepted by the Second Council of Nicaea. Now, it is most certainly true that the “heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1) and what may be known about God “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). But the Orthodox Church hardly has a corner on the market of this kind of glory. This kind of creational glory is speaking every day in every language. But we should note that this creational revelation that speaks about God and invites us to know Him through His created order didn’t suddenly happen at the incarnation. It has been “clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world.” But that reality always stood happily right alongside the prohibition against bowing down to anything in heaven or on the earth or under the earth (Ex. 20:4-5). The heavens proclaim the glory of God day after day, and yet God’s people were not to bow down to them.

Alain Besancon notes that while John of Damascus continues to be one of Orthodoxy’s heroes, his actual articulation (some of which Freeman quotes) is actually more Neoplatonic than Biblical or Christian. The idea that creation and therefore icons “participate” in the being of God and become places of communion with God because of the incarnation is not what the Second Council of Nicaea actually affirmed. It was the militant Emperor Constantine V who seized on John’s language and objected that this left every door open in the house for idolatry and pantheism. Where does the divine nature begin and end? While John likely meant it in a very Greek (Neoplatonic) way, where parts of the universe participate by degrees as they find themselves further down the totem pole of being (ha), this is still not the biblical doctrine of the goodness of creation. Creation isn’t good or sacred because it participates in the Divine being. It’s good and sacred because God made it good and sacred. It’s good and sacred because in its own existence, it reflects and speaks truly about the goodness and glory and holiness of God. Constantine seized on the language of “nature” and “substance” as used at the first council of Nicaea and pointed out that if John was right, that icons participate in that Divine ousia (or “being”), the only way an icon might be properly made and venerated was if it fully participated in the divine substance and was therefore consubstantial or “homooussios” with God. In which case, as Besancon notes, no icons for anybody.

Constantine V tried to pin a couple of different Christological heresies on the iconodules which Besancon notes kept them busy for nearly a generation, but when Nicephorus and Theodore came on the scene, the tables turned and a bit more clarity emerged. Constantine said that if icons “circumscribe” the divine being then the iconodules have fallen into Monophysitism (attributing to Christ only one substance/nature) but if the iconodules claim they only portray Christ’s humanity, then they are slipping into Nestorianism (attempting to separate the divine and human natures). Nicephorus to some extent and Theodore to a greater extent replied by insisting that Constantine was the one actually verging on Christological heresy. A picture or icon, they replied, does not seek to circumscribe “natures,” but rather the “hypostasis” – a specific person. And in the case of Christ, Chalcedon made it clear that it was the one person, the Lord Jesus Christ in whom the divine and human natures were joined without confusion, without separation, etc. Besancon notes that Theodore drove this point home by insisting that an icon of Christ should not actually be called an “icon of Christ” but simply “Christ” since it is (or ought to be) the very hypostasis of Christ. In other words, the substance/being of the icon remains wood and paint and gold, but the “name” or “inscription” is Christ and therefore because of that correspondence, Christ rightly receives the honor bestowed to His icon. It is this view that the Second Council of Nicaea affirmed: “whoever bows down in adoration before the icon, is at the same time bowing down in adoration to the substance (or hypostasis) of the one therein painted.”

The point that Theodore labored to make is that it is the likeness or resemblance between the picture and the person represented that validates the veneration. The icon is not participating in the Divine being. Nor is the icon attempting to say something merely symbolic. To drift into symbolism would be to fall under Constantine’s critique of circumscribing or dividing natures. To say that an icon participates in the being of God in some way opens the door to all the criticisms of the iconoclasts regarding idolatry and down the path to pantheism. Theodore and Nicaea II sidestepped these critiques by claiming that an icon is not an abstraction, nor a symbol but rather is saying something specific and concrete, something true, and that is: this is Christ. Thus, to be in accordance with Nicaea II and Theodore, the Orthodox position really must insist that the icons of Christ are in fact true representations of the man Jesus Christ and that whenever they have seen His icon, they have truly seen Christ.

And here we arrive at long last at the problem. First, let us grant that if there had been photographers on site in Judea during the earthly days of Jesus it would have been fine to take pictures of Jesus, preserve those pictures, and venerate those pictures. For the sake of argument, let’s grant that the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s argument is sound in principle. The question comes down to whether we have strong enough evidence to believe that the icons we now have are in fact accurate portraits of Christ. And very much related to that, did Jesus and the apostles intend for a central part of the ministry of the Church to be through the making and venerating of images? The actual historical evidence seems decidedly against this. As David Vandrunen notes in his article Iconoclasm, Incarnation and Eschatology, “The New Testament consistently, across genres and authors, speaks about the present invisibility of Christ in view of the eternal…. In speaking about the present age as one of being at home in the body and away from the Lord, with the hope of the resurrection looming, Paul states that ‘we walk by faith, not by sight’ [2 Cor. 5:7]… Similar remarks pertain to 1 Peter 1…. ‘Though not seeing him, you love him, and though not seeing him now, you believe in him and rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy’ (1:8).” Likewise, Jesus Himself speaks of His ascension as a time when His followers will not see Him. And it would take several centuries after the Ascension before many icons would appear on the Christian scene, and only then contested, and many looking far different from what is now received as the authorized icon of Jesus.

In other words, there are hefty biblical and historical arguments against assuming that modern icons of Christ actually resemble the Jewish man they claim to. And if they do not, they are not in fact the hypostasis of Christ, and therefore we are left with millions of Christians praying in front of pictures of someone else. Either that someone else is real and exists (but we don’t know them) or else the canonized face of Jesus is the result of the composite imagination of artists. In either case, as Vandrunen notes, it’d be a bit odd for you to be on a long business trip carrying around the picture of another woman who is not your wife while insisting that she’s fine with it because you imagine that it’s her. And if you retreat to the position that it’s just a holy symbol, and it merely reminds you of Christ then you’ve rejected (or redefined) Nicaea II, and contrary to Freeman’s claim, icon veneration is not an invitation to contemplate the real material world but an abstraction, an idea.

While much remains to be discussed about whether and how Christian art and symbolism may or may not have lesser roles to play in the education or devotion of the faithful, the facile dismissals of voices within the catholic faith objecting to the making and veneration of images is not sufficient to answer the substantive historical and theological objections to the practice. If seeing Jesus was to be a central part of our worship, why was this not instituted from the beginning? And in its place why do Jesus and His apostles assume the exact opposite – that Jesus for the present is invisible, that we cannot see Him, and that we long to see Him face to face (e.g. 1 Cor. 13:12)? For Protestant Christians who oppose the veneration of icons, the alternative is not Gnosticism or anti-incarnational asceticism – though Besancon points out that ironically many of the first icons grew out of precisely that tendency to leave the world and physical bodies behind. Rather, a robust, incarnational Protestantism confesses with the church catholic that Christ has come in the flesh and Christ will come again in the flesh to renew all things. In the meantime, the original good creation groans, eagerly awaiting that redemption and the redemption of the bodies of the sons of God.

There is a way of knowing God in and through creation, and certainly God has manifested His determination to heal this broken world through the incarnation, death and resurrection of the God-man Jesus. And truly, creation was and is meant as a place of communion with the Triune God. But the best of the catholic tradition has not directed our gaze to contemplate theologically and historically ambiguous portraits. Rather, the best of the tradition points to the Word preached, water poured, bread broken, wine shared with thanksgiving and joy, and from there sends us out into the real world to dig, to plant, to paint, to build, to hike, to study, to invent, to eat, to drink, to play. The best of the Christian tradition longs to see Jesus face to face, longs to see creation healed, and in the meantime meets the risen Savior by His Spirit in the living, breathing icon of the Christian Church, His Body, the center of new creation life.

Resurrection Leadership

Easter Sunday 2016: Acts 10:34-43, 1 Cor. 15:1-11, Jn. 20:1-18

Introduction

Christian leadership is not Christian unless it is driven by the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But everything hinges on what that event means. If the resurrection of Jesus is an inspiring spiritual story, then Christian leadership primarily leads people by means of religious distraction. But this is not what the first Christians said, and it doesn’t match what they actually did. They claimed that the resurrection of Jesus is nothing short of the inauguration of a new world in the middle of this world, a new creation in the middle of the first creation. The evidence for this is vast, and the implications if true are vaster yet.

In order to see how the resurrection might be the beginning of a new creation. We really need to understand the first creation. What must it have been like to wake up in that first creation? What was it like when the world was dripping wet only minutes, hours, days old? We have a taste of that kind of original newness and goodness in the experience of new children, new love, new marriages, new discoveries, new inventions, new and wonderful gifts. New things are unsullied, unspoiled, and the possibilities for the future seem endless. What will this child do? What will she become? What will we do together as husband and wife? What will this gift enable? And Adam and Eve, as the first man and woman in the history of the world, were the King and Queen of this creation. They were the first leaders of the world, and they had the whole universe waiting for them to discover and enjoy.

Mere Psychology?

However, if evolution is true, then that is just a make-believe story that humans tell themselves to cope with the harshness of reality. There wasn’t really an original Eden, modern sociologist and psychologists will say, but we project our love for new things and for innocence backward, imagining that there was an actual time when everything was completely innocent and good and new. Some believe the stories help people cope – so they don’t mind them as much, but others believe that they prevent people from actually facing reality – and they seek to free people from what they consider a delusional escape. And Christians can sometimes have their own versions of this when they think that the resurrection of Jesus is merely about going to heaven when they die. If the death and resurrection of Jesus is merely a spiritual escape plan, then it functions as a somewhat more “Christian” coping mechanism. This world is corrupt and spoiled, but you get to leave it all behind. Of course, the Bible does clearly teach that heaven awaits every believer in Christ, but that isn’t all. And if that is all we teach, “Christian” leadership may seem to reduce to distraction tactics and escapism, and the mission may seem to vacillate between group therapy sessions and pyramid marketing schemes. And the point is that this kind of leadership flows directly from our view of the resurrection. What you believe the resurrection means effects the way you lead.

Real Redemption

Listen to the way Peter and Paul describe the meaning of the resurrection and their mission. Explaining what happened to Cornelius the Roman centurion, Peter tells him that he and the other Christians are witnesses of the goodness of Jesus, of the fact that the Jews put him to death by hanging him on a tree (Acts 10:38-39), but that God raised him on the third day and appeared to those chosen by God as witnesses, those who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 10:40-41). And the command they received was to preach to the people that this Jesus is the one appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead and everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10:42-43). The resurrection means that Jesus is the judge of the whole earth and everyone who believes is forgiven. This is not an announcement of escape or distraction. It’s the announcement of present reality, a change in regime, and the New King is Good. Christian leadership leads with this.

Paul relates to the Corinthians that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-5). He appeared to the twelve and more than five hundred, some of whom were still alive at the point of Paul’s writing to verify the claim (1 Cor. 15:5-7). And last of all, Jesus appeared to Paul, as one untimely born, least of the apostles, in that sense (1 Cor. 15:8). But Paul testifies that this grace – the grace of meeting Jesus alive from the dead – has not been in vain (1 Cor. 15:10). This grace has been potent, powerful, and electric. Paul says that this grace propels people to work, and even though he got a late start, Paul has taken the lead (1 Cor. 15:10). The resurrection means that Jesus is alive changing lives and propelling people to live fearless, bold, ambitious, and creative lives. Christian leadership believes this, announces this, and lives this.

What Does This Mean?

It’s no accident that Mary Magdalene mistakes Jesus for a gardener outside the tomb (Jn. 20:15). In the beginning Adam sinned, and now sin and death have spread to all men because all men sin (Rom. 5:12). Jesus is the New and Faithful Adam who has crushed the serpent by His death and resurrection (Gen. 3:15). Neither is at an accident that it is Mary Magdalene who first meets Jesus in the garden cemetery. She had seven demons before she met Jesus, and she represents unfaithful Eve and everyone one us in our sins.

Jesus commissions Mary to announce His ascension to His brothers (Jn. 20:17). This is essentially the same announcement as the Great Commission that Jesus gives to the Church to go into all the world preaching the gospel and making disciples of all nations (Mt. 28:18-20. Because of the resurrection, the entire world is being restored. Christian leadership is the joyful, fearless living out of the truth of the resurrection. Because Jesus is risen from the dead, we are sent out to explore, build, plant, create, discover, marry, bear children, and share this gospel – the good news that Christ is risen, that there is a new Adam, a new Gardner in Eden, and therefore all things are ours and all things are being made new (Rev. 21:5).

The Light of Life

Easter Vigil 2016

“Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” (John 20:1)

Going all the way back to the apostles, tradition tells us that Christians have gathered on the night before the anniversary of Easter to pray together and celebrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And nearly as far back, God’s people have celebrated with light. When Jesus rose from the dead, the Great Sun that has existed before all time and all worlds, the Sun that warms the whole universe arose, having conquered the darkness of sin and death, and began to shine.

By the time of the great Christian Emperor Constantine (A.D. 331), we are told that he had the city of Milan transformed “into the brilliance of day, by lighting through the whole city pillars of wax, while burning lamps illuminated every house, so that this nocturnal celebration was rendered brighter than the brightest day.” Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 394) describes the same night in one of his Easter sermons as “this glowing night that links the splendor of burning lamps to the morning rays of the sun, thus producing continuous daylight without any darkness.” And Saint Patrick himself is said to have begun the tradition of setting and blessing large bonfires outside the church on Holy Saturday night, symbolizing the rising of Christ, the Light of the World.

“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn. 1:3-5). And again Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn. 8:12). This phrase, “the light of life” – what does it mean? John opens his gospel saying that in Jesus was life and that life was the light of men, and Jesus expressly announces: who ever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. What is this “light of life?”

The book of Acts and the life of Paul is one place to look to see what Jesus means. Paul, also called Saul, a young Hebrew scholar had been leading the suppression of Christianity in those early days after Pentecost. He was zealous for the law, for the purity of the Jewish people, and was absolutely convinced that Jesus of Nazareth and his followers were a heretical sect seeking to lead the Jewish nation astray. Perhaps he imagined himself as a Josiah or Hezekiah or perhaps an Ezra or even one of the Prophets calling the Jews back to the law and the covenants.

Armed with these convictions, Paul was leading the suppression of Christianity. He thought their leader was dead, and now it was time to wipe out the rest of them. Having received the blessing and commission of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, Paul went to Damascus to find the Christians there and break up the fledgling community. On his way, a light from heaven suddenly shone all around him. This light was so bright, so surprising, so overwhelming that Paul fell to the ground. Then he heard a voice saying, “Why are you persecuting me?” And Paul asked, “Who are you?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” When Paul got up, he could see nothing, and so his companions led him into the city by hand. “And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank” (Acts 9:3-9). Later, when Paul recounted this event in Jerusalem, he again noted this “great light from heaven” and this voice of Jesus. And he noted that while his companions saw the light, they could not understand the voice, but Paul could not see because of the brightness of the light, so they led him into Damascus (Acts 22:6-11).

His story is repeated for a third time in the book of Acts when Paul preaches to the Roman governors Agrippa and Festus. This third time, Paul gives a little more of what Jesus said to him in the midst of that bright light shining down upon him. Jesus said that Paul was to go into the city because he was being appointed by Jesus to be “a servant and a witness” to the things he had seen in Jesus and to those things in which Jesus would appear to him (Acts 26:16-17). And Jesus says that He is sending Paul on this ministry in order to “open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18). And as Paul summarizes what this means to Agrippa, he says that this is why he has not ceased from announcing this message to all men that they must turn to God just as he has, that this is nothing less than what the prophets and Moses foretold would come to pass “that the Christ must suffer and that by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23).

This is the light of life that appeared to Paul and which Jesus commissioned him to proclaim to all men. What is this light of life? First, do not miss the fact that this is Jesus alive and well. Paul thought Jesus was dead. He thought Stephen, the first Christian martyr was dead. And he believed that very shortly the whole Christian sect would be dead. Paul was wrong. Jesus was alive. Jesus had died, but He was alive again. And this could only mean one thing. This life that Jesus had was indestructible, eternal, invincible, immortal – fully and completely Divine. The light of life is God’s eternal existence shining forth. Jesus is that light, and when He shines on men, they begin to partake of that Divine life. Stephen wasn’t dead. And Paul could not kill this movement. Paul and all who place their trust in Jesus begin to shine; they begin to be transformed from glory to glory. Death can no longer hold them.

Second, this transformation is all about turning. Paul was turned from his mission of persecuting the Christian Church to being a Christian himself. This is not because Paul realized that it would be more lucrative or more respectable to join the Christians. Nothing in this world could explain Paul’s change. The only explanation is that Paul became convinced that what he thought was true before was actually wrong. When the light shone on him, it revealed him to be blind. And notice that the light did not blind his companions, but they couldn’t understand the words. This suggests that the light blinded Paul so that he could hear Jesus. This is the power of Satan that every human being needs to be set free from. Satan says that your eyes will be opened when you sin. He says you will be gods. You will be free. And when people believe these lies, they are held captive by them. And you can’t understand the words of Jesus. You can see the light, but you don’t understand the words. Is that you? Do you see the light but you can’t understand the words? If that is you, then call on the name of the Lord right now. Ask Jesus to shine on you this night. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. God does not refuse any who come to Him. All who seek Him will find Him. Knock and it shall be opened to you. For the same God who commanded light to shine in the darkness now commands the light of the knowledge of the glory of God to shine in our hearts in the face of Jesus Christ His Son. The light of life will reveal that you have been in the darkness, that your deeds have been dark and evil. But you will hear the voice of Jesus, and He will set you free.

Last, notice that the light of life commissions Paul. When Jesus appeared to Paul with that bright light, He was enacting the very thing that He was commissioning Paul to do. Jesus appeared in a bright light because Paul was being sent to open the eyes of the blind, to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God. Jesus came and proclaimed light to Paul because Paul would then go and proclaim light to the world. And this is the light that the Christian Church has been proclaiming for the last two thousand years. This is the light of Christ, the indestructible, eternal life of Jesus Himself, whom death could not hold. He after three days in the grave, took His life back up again forever. This is the light of the truth, the light that reveals our blindness, our sin, our folly, and the same light that sets us free to walk in the truth, to life in freedom and joy. And if this is true, if Jesus is alive and He still speaks and turns men from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to the joy of God and we have experienced that, then we like Paul have been commissioned to bear witness to that light. Not every Christian is a pastor, but every Christian is a witness of this light. And in this sense, every Christian is a preacher, a proclaimer of that light to all people. Every Christian is a leader because every Christian is a light because Christ has shone on them.

So we gather this night like Mary Magdalene two thousand years ago while it is still dark to remember and celebrate the glorious fact that the stone has been taken away from the tomb and now the Light of the World is driving back all the darkness. So light the candles and bonfires, turn up the music and sing and dance, ring the bells and shout your joy in the streets, eat and drink and give gifts and share with those who have none. Christ is risen!

Arise and shine for your light is come.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

How To Not Be Passive Aggressive on Palm Sunday

Mt. 20:25-28 & Lk. 19:28-48

Introduction

This Holy Week, we will be meditating on the theme of Christian leadership. Jesus contrasts His example with the rulers of the Gentiles when He says that the great must be servants, the first must be slaves: “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt. 20:28). Jesus points to the giving of His life as the model for all Christian leadership, an authority grounded in service. This means that the shape of Jesus’ self-giving can and must be studied as our preeminent example of Christian leadership, and so today we focus on the triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

The Rulers of the Gentiles

In order to see the significance of what Jesus does on Palm Sunday, we need to understand the contrast Jesus draws. The rulers of the Gentiles exercise authority by “lording over” and by “exerting authority.” And historically this happens in one of two ways: First is by raw, brute force and violence. And the second is by a combination of kindness and coercion. The first is what we might call “aggressive” and the second is what we call “passive-aggressive.” The one operates on the power of fear; the other doubles the power of fear by adding in a confusing mixture of hope and passivity. Moments of kindness or hurt feelings become the counter weights for the moments of aggression. Both methods of leadership function by means of manipulation, by emotional or physical force (and often both).

How is Christian leadership to be different than “coercive” or “passive aggressive” methods of leadership? When a mother spanks her young son and then prays with him and hugs him and explains that he must not disobey – is this coercive or passive-aggressive? When a leader tells his people that he loves them, cares for them and therefore he has decided to lead in a particular direction (perhaps in a direction the company doesn’t prefer) – is this passive aggressive? The Bible’s answer seems to be: it depends.

When Jesus commands that a colt be given to his disciples for his use, and He deliberately stages a scene that pictures the great Israelite kings of old riding into Jerusalem in victory, refuses to listen to the religious authorities in Jerusalem, breaks into tears over the city and then announces its coming destruction for not listening to Him, and then breaks into a rage and turns over tables and drives people out of the temple – is Jesus being passive-aggressive? Our instinctive answer is “no,” but why not?

A Ransom for Many

Jesus said that His leadership program can be summarized as His plan to serve and give His life as a “ransom for many” (Mt. 20:28). His leadership pays debts and sets people free. In contrast to the rulers of the Gentiles who exert authority and lordship, Jesus serves and gives His life as a ransom. Gentile-leadership tries to get people “to do things” and often in order to serve the leader; Jesus-leadership serves people through speaking and enacting the truth in order to set them free (Jn. 8:32).

Jesus served the people through owning His true identity and riding into Jerusalem as their king, and He wouldn’t silence the people because they were rejoicing in the truth (Lk. 19:37-40). Jesus served the people through His tears over Jerusalem so they might truly see their dire situation (Lk. 19:41-44). Jesus served the people through enacting God’s fierce judgment and restoration of true worship (Lk. 19:45-48). True Christian leadership serves by living truthfully in order to set people free to become all God created them to be.

Jesus isn’t going into Jerusalem to “get” the Jews to obey Him. And neither is Jesus going into Jerusalem to “get” the Jews to kill Him so they’ll feel bad and then obey Him. The first would be straightforward coercive leadership, and the latter would be passive-aggressive. Jesus came to set people free to be what God created them to be. He wants to set them free from the worship of idols to worship the true God (Lk. 19:37-40). He wants to set them free from the violence and coercion of their enemies (Lk. 19:41-44). He wants to set them free from the slavery to greed and spiritual manipulation (Lk. 19:45-48). Jesus isn’t doing anything to “get” the people to do something. Jesus does what He does in order to free the people to be who God made them to be. He comes to heal our blindness so that we can see the world rightly, so that we can see what has always been true all along. Ultimately, Jesus will accomplish this by dying and rising in such a way as to reveal to the world that He is the rightful “King who comes in the name of the Lord.” He will die and rise again in such a way as to take upon Himself the wrath of God that all sin deserves and set men free to live without shame or guilt or fear. He will die and rise again in such a way as to undo the need for buying and selling sacrifices so that all nations can draw near to God in the freedom of prayer.

We are all like the centurion who when he saw Jesus die (having seen many Jews crucified over the years), could not help but exclaim: Truly this is the Son of God!

Conclusions

In the case of parenting, Christ-like leadership aims to communicate the truth and set children free from beliefs, habits, and actions that enslave them and prevent them from knowing the truth and becoming the men and women they were created to be. It’s not fundamentally about “getting them to do things.” It’s about displaying the goodness and glory of Christ for them to rejoice in. It’s about sorrowing over sin and evil and inviting them to see the world rightly through Christ. It’s about standing fiercely against whatever may prevent them from drawing near to God.

In a marriage or a family or a business or the Church, Christ-like leadership is not trying to “get people to do things” nor does it collapse into passivity or apathy. There certainly is a fleshly arrogance and ambition that seeks its own glory, but there is another kind of Christ-like leadership that rejoices in being a husband, a parent, a boss, a statesman, an elder – and aspires to those positions. When Jesus road into Jerusalem, He was embracing the truth of who He was and what God had called Him to be. We are called to imitate that by embracing our callings as mothers, fathers, husbands, friends, elders, employers. And there is great joy and freedom for wives, employees, constituencies, and congregations when those callings are received with joy. How can you enact and embrace this glory? But this glory is not merely regal, it is also humble and full of feeling and vigor. Often you will be resisted or disobeyed, and this will be heartbreaking. But this is too is part of how we tell the truth in order to set others free. What must you mourn? And finally, what must you drive away? How are you called to enact the truth to set others free?

Jesus rode into Jerusalem two thousand years ago not to get people to do certain things, but to serve them with the truth and ransom them from captivity to sin and death so they might become all they were created to be.

The Power of God’s Pleasure

Is. 49:1-7, 1 Cor. 1:18-31

Isaiah says that the Lord chose a servant from the womb to be a glorious weapon, His sword, His arrow. This servant would be Israel in whom He would be glorified. Israel had wandered away from God. Judah had been scattered. But the plan was for a new Israel to be born who would please the Lord and in so doing, He would raise up the tribes of Israel to new life. But not only this, but Isaiah says that God is going to be so pleased, so glorified and honored that it would be a shame to only save Israel and Judah, so He plans to make His servant shine in such a way that the kings and princes of the nations, the ends of the earth will see and bow themselves before the Lord.

This is what God did through His Son Jesus. He was born and kings came and bowed before Him. He rode into Jerusalem and many proclaimed Him king. He was crucified and soldiers confessed that truly He was the Christ. The thing to notice is that what made all of this effective and powerful in the first instance was that God was pleased. And this is why the preaching of the cross is the power of God. The cross is preached, when you share the gospel with a stranger, or remind your friend of the gospel – the power is not you getting all the words right. The power is in what pleases God. And He has chosen the weak things to overcome the strong. He has chosen the low and despised things to overcome the things that seem great and powerful.

Because Jesus was obedient, because He listened to the voice of God His Father, because He went into Jerusalem and faced what Israel and all men deserve to face, God is eternally and fully and unbreakably pleased with His Son, and God is so fiercely pleased with His Son, that all who trust in Him find themselves engulfed by that same pleasure. And so we boast in Him. He is our hero, our King. Our confidence is not in ourselves. It is not in our friends. It is not in being right. Our confidence is in the One who pleased God, and now eternally pleases God, and God is pleased to work through our weakness, to work through all who put their trust in Him.

Bultmann, Cyril, and a bit more on Sola Scriptura

Robert Arakaki has responded here to my Reformation21 article An Apostolic Case for Sola Scriptura. I’m grateful for his interaction and some of the other questions I’ve received. Here are a few thoughts in reply.

Arakaki rightly points out that if the apostolic commission included a written testimony, there should be evidence in the New Testament of this task. Unfortunately, Arakaki then proceeds to ignore the New Testament evidence I traced in the original article. But for clarity, I’ll quickly review: First, Jesus told the apostles that it was their job to be His witnesses from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. The word “witness” or “testimony” has a rich Jewish legacy going all the way back to the “Testimony” which was the written copy of the Ten Words that resided in the ark of the covenant (e.g. Ex. 25:16). Later in Israelite history, “testimony” becomes synonymous with the “law of God” written in the books of Moses in particular. By the time of Isaiah, the prophet pleads with the people to measure the various “mutterings” they are receiving with the word of God and the “testimony” (Is. 8:16-20). While God’s word certainly was announced through the mouths of prophets, it was also inscribed permanently to form the Old Testament.

Related to this, while Arakaki can hardly be faulted for assuming the modern scholarly consensus on when the New Testament was written (often thought to be decades after the events they record), the origin of this modern theory is 19th century liberalism, which having been caught up in the excesses of romanticism on the one hand and enlightenment skepticism on the other, found it rather natural (not to mention convenient) to assume a rather drawn out process of oral tradition slowly being written down and codified. The love child Schleiermacher conceived was born as Bultmann’s full blown existential bastard, and many of even the most robust Protestants (and Orthodox and Romanists) imbibed various strains of their theorizing, including the process of writing the New Testament. Nevertheless, this modern theory flies in the face of a thousand years of Jewish practice and tradition going all the way back at least to Sinai, and it goes directly against the command that Jesus gave the disciples. There is no evidence the apostles waited twenty or forty years to begin writing. One piece of evidence corroborating an earlier date for the writing of the New Testament is the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament except as an immanent future event. It is highly likely that all portions of the New Testament were written by the mid 60s, pushing the usual timeline back into the 40s at least. Although I suspect that Matthew’s gospel was written in the 30s, almost immediately after Pentecost.

Several more lines of textual evidence include Luke’s explicit reference to the many who “have undertaken to compile a narrative” (Lk. 1:1). Presumably he refers to Matthew and Mark at least, but if Luke is writing in the early 60s, finishing Acts with Paul in Rome (Acts 28, 2 Tim. 4:11), it’s likely that he’s referring to many of the writings that would come to comprise the New Testament. We should also note that these writings originated from “eye witnesses,” which at a minimum refers to the apostles themselves (Acts 1:21-22). This indicates the high likelihood that Luke studied under Peter at some point, since he is the only one who could have been the eye witness of some of the events recorded in Acts 1-6, and when the narrative shifts to Saul of Tarsus, we are right to assume that he was the eye witness source for the rest of the book of Acts. It’s a fun and subtle moment when Luke explicitly enters his own narrative when he begins to accompany Paul from Macedonia, suddenly shifting from “they” to “we” in Acts 20:5. Add to this the emphasis Paul places on his signature, the way he signs all of his authentic letters (2 Thess. 3:17), the fact that Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16), and there is actually a great deal of New Testament evidence that the apostles were “quite conscious of this goal” of compiling a body of writing that comprised the “testimony” of those hand-picked eye witnesses of Jesus.

Arakaki’s claim that Jesus never made writing part of the apostolic calling is also a bit odd since no one in this discussion believes Scripture is expendable. Everyone believes that the writing of Scripture was an apostolic act. So this objection almost proves too much. If Jesus didn’t command the apostles to write Scripture, then who needs Scripture? But of course Arakaki doesn’t mean to denigrate the written Scripture. Preaching and writing are not opposed to one another any more than any of the prophets of old (beginning at least with Moses) would have thought that their prophecies would not be written down. As Arakaki notes with regard to Iranaeus, those nearest the apostles assumed that the oral and written teachings of the apostles would have been complimentary and not in tension. To be clear, of course I (and all thoughtful Protestants) understand that there would have been a great deal of oral teaching going out during the lives of the apostles. No one disputes the existence of oral tradition alongside the growing corpus of written instruction. Here, I will gladly cite that favorite verse of our Orthodox and Roman brethren! “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (1 Thess. 2:15).

However, and this is the point I’m still waiting for someone to elucidate for me, when various Christians in various places got conflicting reports, as happened in Thessalonica for example – how were they to tell the authentic teachings from the scammers and false prophets and false apostles? Again, my point is not that the oral teachings were not authoritative, my point is that by their very nature they could not be verified like a written letter or gospel. If you want to know what Paul wrote, you can go back and check, but if you have different memories or have received different reports of what Paul said, you have to go get Paul himself. This seems to be the precise situation Paul is facing with the Thessalonians. There are spurious “words” and “letters” that seem to be from the apostles (2 Thess. 2:2). How should the Thessalonians judge the real oral and written traditions from the spurious ones? Paul tells the Thessalonians to check everything against his written words (2 Thess. 3:14) – and since there are false letters flying around too, he tells them to check the signatures against this one. “This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine…” (2 Thess. 3:17) I’d love to have a conversation about these verses and the particular situation Paul is addressing.

Just a couple final comments for now:

First, my “theory” does not assume a “static listing of canonical scripture right from the time the Apostles Peter and Paul were alive.” My original article happily admitted that there were indeed some anomalies (e.g. Hebrews). My primary aim is to prove that it was the task of the apostles to hand down an authoritative teaching/testimony concerning Jesus, and that the evidence of the New Testament indicates that wherever disputes arose as to what that apostolic teaching was, we are to refer to their written testimony as found in the New Testament. This thesis does not require a completed canonical list by the death of the apostles, but it certainly explains why there was so little controversy surrounding the apostolic writings, which became known as the New Testament.

Lastly, with regard to Arakaki’s concern about the role of the bishop, I refer my readers to Cyril, the Bishop of Jerusalem (ca. 315-384 A.D.) who writes in his Catechetical Lectures:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Notice first off that Cyril says his authority is not absolute but depends on his proving his teaching from Scripture. This is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and it’s from fathers like Cyril that Bucer and Luther recovered this apostolic and patristic doctrine. But secondly, do not think for a moment that this obliterates the true authority of pastors and elders or demolishes the significant role they played in establishing the Church in the apostolic writings. Nevertheless, it is absolutely crucial to say what Cyril says: all true authority derives from Christ, and Christ has spoken clearly, absolutely through His apostles in the pages of Scripture. We must not be drawn aside by “plausible” teachings that may be apostolic in origin; we must push further and ground whatever we teach or believe in their very words found in the New Testament.

Elephants in Bikinis

So let’s have a thought or two about the current political circus displaying its acrobatics around about us, shall we?

But first, let’s review the basic ground rules for how we think about politics as Bible believing Christians. On the one hand, Jesus rose from the dead and is now the rightful ruler of the whole universe (Mt. 28:18, Acts 17:30-31). And on the other hand, this means that every earthly ruler makes or breaks their authority on the Rock that is Jesus Christ. If they bow the knee they may be used by Jesus as His servant (Phil. 2:9-11, Rom. 13:1-7). But those rulers of the earth that conspire together against God’s Anointed by legislating abominations and repeatedly defending thugs who carry out iniquity will be shattered like pottery, and their arrogant idiocy will go down like a bad dream, whatever plausibility their mad ravings seemed to have on the evening news (Ps. 2).

Now to the clowns and acrobats and lion tamers: And to be clear, while I use these images quite whimsically, I also use them seriously. For it is undeniable that this is the category our political situation rightly conjures. This has actually been true for some time, but Donald Trump has helpfully dragged the Republican party out of the dressing room in the clownish skivvies its been wearing for the last number of decades for everyone to see. Some have fainted, some have cheered, and many of us are just sort of staring at the spectacle and wondering how long these elephants can teeter on top of each other in these indecorous bikinis. And not to leave anybody out, but we have the Democrats running their monkey and witch show on the left. They’ve been at the shenanigans for quite a bit longer, so their debates consist primarily of debating whether to go with the leopard or cheetah print donkey thong. But it’s every bit as unseemly, and meanwhile the media giggle and gobble it up like nine year old boys reading the Song of Solomon under the covers at night.

Ah, but how about that Donald Trump, eh? The first thing to note is that sometimes God has to yell at us with a megaphone because we are completely deaf, and then we still aren’t quite sure what He’s saying. So let’s just begin by asserting that God is now standing on a chair with a magic marker in His fist and writing furiously on our decadent Persian wall, and it’s not yet clear that we’re going to be able to sound out the letters because we’ve also gone as blind as the enormous blinking screens we’ve hung up in the trailers we can barely pay the lot rent on. And this leads us to the second point which is that to the extent that we cannot understand the Donald Trump phenomenon, we are the scribes and Pharisees of our day. Trump is certainly no Jesus (God help us!), but the kind of intense, widespread, popular appeal that Trump has and the simultaneous confusion most of us have about it really needs to be a punch in the gut of the Christian Church. Jesus said He came to seek and save the lost. He said blessed are the poor. True religion is to stop for the Jew beaten bloody on the side of the road, to care for the orphans and widows in their distress. Turns out we have millions of neighbors we don’t understand in the slightest. That’s a big fat F on the Church’s report card, though that really shouldn’t come as a surprise. A more engaged Church would have seen this coming from miles away. Lots of us conservative Pharisees saw the Obama phenomenon coming a little sooner, but we still had a similar problem at that time too — we knew our neighbors so poorly that we couldn’t imagine electing such an extreme leftist newbie. And God gave him to us twice, as if to underline this reality for our stubborn, foolish brains.

Finally, let’s be honest that Trump is so popular because he represents America well. He acts like the irresponsible frat boy we have been practicing so hard to be. We are a nation that demands Zoolander and Shrek, and now we are about to have it for real — only we’re about to find out that it isn’t nearly as funny in real life. There’s a great deal of discussion going on about the particular political policies of the Trump outrage machine — white identity politics, political correctness rebellion, immigrant greed, whatever. But clearly, he is the beer-drinking, porn-watching, shoot-the-bastards white trash neighbor we all have in every town in America. But — and this is really crucial: Trump is the shiny-faced idol of that lifestyle. As the Bible taught us centuries ago, the reason wealth is such a dangerous thing is because it is a kind of fortress. For the righteous man, it may be a fortress for accomplishing great good, but for those with the hook in their cheek, it’s a thick mud in their eyes that doesn’t allow them to see themselves for what they really are. When you can visit a prostitute and then spend a week on your yacht in the Caribbean, guilt seems like just a bit of indigestion. When you can shack up with your girlfriend and then pay for her abortion and take her for a weekend getaway, shame is just a bad vibe that is easily masked. The fact of the matter is that Trump is the white trash god. He is everything the godless lower class in America value but he’s done up up like last night’s hooker. If Obama was the idol of the upper class elites, Trump is the same thing from the other end of the spectrum which means that if we keep tipping like this, we’re going to capsize this ship any minute.

Lastly, the thing that I think should be at the forefront of our minds at this point is the mission before us as Christians. Yes, we most certainly should embrace our callings as citizens of this republic and fulfill those duties with honesty, integrity, and courage. But our first task is to love our neighbors and proclaim the Lordship of Jesus to them, for their good and healing. The last eight years have revealed a swath of neighbors who need Jesus, friends and relatives who are covering their guilt and shame with one kind of Mammon, and the current circus is revealing another swath of neighbors who are covering their guilt and shame with another version of Mammon. But Mammon is a cruel slave master, and the slaves are getting angry. Guilt and shame are the real, sharp ends of his bull whip, and it doesn’t matter what you’re wearing or offering, when you walk into the room. The only thing that makes sense is somebody who’s just as mad as they are. The fact that Trump isn’t actually saying anything deep is one of his enormous attractions, and until we get that, we’re going to keep dressing up various poodles like the idiot elites that we are (can anyone say Mitt Romney?).

The answer in part is visiting the prisoners, loving the orphans, and befriending the prostitutes like Jesus did. And much to the chagrin of many conservative elites, this means getting over a certain amount of our cultural snobbery. Somehow we have to learn how to love true excellence and love the people right in front of us. But the bigger answer that is blasting on the heavenly bullhorn is that the answer isn’t a different political party or a different candidate. A Ted Cruz would certainly be a vast, undeserved reprieve, but it would also have a high likelihood of sending the Church right back to sleep. The great hope in a moment like this is the real helplessness of all the conservative elites. The fact that the Republican Party has collectively messed its pants is the most hopeful thing about this moment. Because you can’t fix this with politics. This is a deep, heart-breaking spiritual problem with massive social and political implications. This is the shame and blood guilt of fifty million (and counting) babies. This is the shame and blood guilt of sodomy and arrogant foreign policies. This is the shame and blood guilt of orphans and widows assigned to the government dole so we can get on with our comfortable and semi-respectable middle class idolatry. And the only answer to that is a straightforward proclamation of the wrath of God against all human sin, the blood of Jesus for the forgiveness and cleansing for all of that sin, and the resurrection of Jesus for the renewal of all things. And this gospel must be preached in a such a way as to make Republicans and Democrats alike wet their pants. Which means we need to realize that to our Pharisaical ears, this kind of blood-soaked gospel is probably going to sound a lot more Trump-ish than we’re comfortable with, which is why I happen to think that Cruz is the only shot the elephants have. So sure, I’ll vote for Cruz if he gets the nomination and I hope (against hope) that Trump gets slaughtered in Ohio and Florida today, but this really is a Hail Mary delay tactic and not what you might call a solution.

What I’m praying for is that God would do whatever it takes to turn us back to Him. And everyone of us ought to be praying that God would do whatever it takes to turn our hearts entirely to Him.

Testing the Spirit of Sola Scriptura

One aspect of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that sometimes seems problematic is what the Protestant tradition has called “the internal testimony of the Spirit.” Is this the Protestant version of the Mormon “burning in the bosom?” Is this the catch all excuse-maker justifying all manner of iniquity? I cannot submit to my elders because my conscience just won’t let me. I cannot stay with my wife because the Spirit has not revealed that to be God’s will for my life. I must become Eastern Orthodox because my conscience demands… oh wait a second. Woops.

Well first off, we need to recognize that the Bible does speak to this. There is an internal testimony of the Spirit: “And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us” (1 Jn. 3:24). But John continues: “Beloved do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1). So just because somebody feels assured of something doesn’t mean it’s the Holy Spirit. False spirits lead people away from God while the Holy Spirit leads people into communion with God. The central test for the spirits comes down to whether they confess that Jesus is from God (1 Jn. 4:2-3). But there is also a fellowship and submission test: Those spirits that are not from God are collaborators with the world: “therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them” (1 Jn. 4:5). Those who have the Spirit of God inside of them overcome the world because “he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 Jn. 4:4). But then John says this: “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 Jn. 4:6). The internal testimony of the Spirit is not at odds with the apostolic teaching. The internal testimony of the Spirit is not an anti-rational trump card that discerns loop holes, exceptions, and penumbra in the Scriptures. Rather, the internal testimony of the Spirit confirms precisely what the apostles taught. And what did the apostles teach? The New Testament Scriptures, those writings authored and sponsored by the hand-picked witnesses of Jesus.

However, sometimes the internal testimony of the Spirit is presented as R.C. Sproul says in such a way as to give “the impression that the biblical data, apart from the internal testimony, is insufficient to provide a rational-evidential basis for faith in Christ and that the Holy Spirit either provides new internal evidence for the believer that is unavailable to all, or that he gives the Christian the ability to leap over the evidence (being either insufficient or contrary) by an act of faith” (Scripture Alone, 75-76). In other words, the internal testimony of the Spirit is not the Holy Spirit communicating secret information that is not available to everyone, nor is it some kind of irrational leap over the chasm of insufficient evidence. Then what it is? Sproul cites Calvin who says that this doctrine means that the Holy Spirit teaches men inwardly such that they “acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it by the testimony of the Spirit.” Calvin is not saying that people may appeal to their conscience and get the Bible to say whatever they want it to say. He’s not saying that the Bible really is one of those choose-your-own-adventure novels. He’s saying the Holy Spirit compels men to receive what the Bible actually says. As Sproul puts it, “for Calvin, the testimony of the Spirit does not cause men to acquiesce contrary to the evidence but into the evidence of Scripture” (77, emphasis mine).

To summarize, the Bible itself teaches that the Holy Spirit is given so that we might hear the words of the apostles. Those who have the Holy Spirit listen to the apostles. What infallible record has been left by the apostles? Their authoritative writings collected in the pages of the New Testament. The internal testimony of the Spirit compels men to read and listen to the actual words, the actual claims, the actual evidence set forth in the Scriptures themselves and to receive them, believe them, and obey them. The deep irony is that those who deny Sola Scriptura often sound far more mystical (and might we say Mormon?) than this traditional Protestant position. Rather than being driven back to the text of Scripture, to study the text, to wrestle with the text like the faithful Bereans did with Paul’s gospel, many in the Orthodox and Roman traditions dismiss such study as hopelessly ambiguous, individualistic, and at worst dangerously tending toward heresy. What you need, they seem to say, is the spirit of tradition to lead you and guide you. But as John says, you really must test the spirits. Some of them don’t listen to the apostles.

God Does Not Mumble

The biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is the only ultimate and infallible authority over the Church and every Christian, rests on the fact that Scripture is God’s perfect Word. The Bible says that God’s Word is perfect. His Word is complete. His Word is breathed out by the Holy Spirit.

We know that words can sometimes be misunderstood, but we still function in our day-to-day lives assuming that words communicate fairly well. While we may occasionally need to clear up misunderstandings, we do not ordinarily need to stop and form elaborate study committees to exegete all of our conversations. While God’s Word has the kind of depth and richness that invites further study – like great literature and poetry always does, it also remains clear and straightforward in all of its essentials. The Bible clearly explains that God created the world, that people sinned and rebelled and were estranged from God, but that God determined to rescue humanity beginning with the family of Abraham and his covenant relationship with Israel. This culminated in Jesus Christ, God’s own Son, who lived a perfect life, was betrayed and executed and who rose from the dead three days later, ascended into heaven, and poured out His Spirit on all who believe, establishing Christ’s body, the Christian Church. The Bible clearly sets out the forgiveness of our sins in the blood of Christ, the promise of that forgiveness in baptism, and the fellowship in that grace through the bread and wine shared at communion. The Bible clearly describes the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer, conforming them into the image and likeness of Jesus because when someone becomes a Christian, Christ begins to live inside of them, giving them new desires to love and obey God.

All of this is clearly set forth in Scripture. There are sometimes difficult passages and things that are difficult to understand, but this does not mean that the Bible is not clear about the central things, the most important things. Rather, the Bible is God’s Word to man, and God does not mumble. He has spoken clearly so that we might know Him and walk with Him.

Sola Scriptura & Truth with a Beard

One caricature of Sola Scriptura often sketches the Protestant doctrine as problematic on the grounds that since many people read the Bible and come away with different interpretations, it is necessarily (even if unintentionally) an individualistic doctrine. When it comes down to it, Protestants submit to themselves and their personal interpretations and not to Christ or His Church.

Now, to be fair, there is a small, sliver of truth in the caricature — which is why the caricature can seem persuasive. But there’s a significant problem with this caricature as well which is a significant distortion of the actual doctrine and therefore it is, as they say, untrue.

And the center of the problem rests squarely on the question: What is Scripture? The Christian answer to that question is that it is the Word of God. Scripture is inspired by God, breathed out by the Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Now this doesn’t guarantee universal clarity and consensus, but it does set any differences of opinion in a particular framework and context. God chose to speak to His people through a written medium. Various parts of Scripture were originally preached, proclaimed, and announced out loud, but the law and testimony was over the centuries written down, such that even Jesus Himself came preaching and teaching not merely on His own authority, but rather on the basis of “It is written…” and in order to “fulfill the Scriptures.”

Frequently, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic apologists seem to think that there is an inherent weakness in written Scripture. It’s unclear, it’s ambiguous, it’s insufficient, and many heretics claim their heresies on the basis of Scripture — therefore, it’s dangerous. But going all the way back to Moses (at least), God has been telling His people to write His words down. The written record of God’s word is a design feature and not an unfortunate defect. In other words, whatever may be unclear or ambiguous, God is not worried about it and otherwise assumes that what He says is sufficiently clear and intelligible.

And this is the point: it only makes sense to conclude that Sola Scriptura ultimately rests on the opinions of individual people if God is not actually speaking through His written word and if that word is not objective. But if God is actually speaking through His written word in the precise way He intended to, in a way that can be understood, and objectively known, with sufficient clarity, then Sola Scriptura does not rest on the opinions of individual men. Some men refuse to submit to the Word of God, and some parts of the Word of God are hard to understand, and some men twist Scripture to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). But this is not a defect in the Word of God. It is a defect in the hearts of men. Note carefully: Peter doesn’t say that since some Scripture is hard to understand, you should not try to understand the Bible yourself but rather let the Church or Tradition tell you. No, rather, Peter exhorts Christians to be patient and careful and grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:14-18). In other words, Peter exhorts Christians to study harder, pray harder, love deeper, etc. And to be clear: of course that includes the Body of Christ, the Church, and the truth that the Spirit has already led us to understand and embrace.

The point is that Scripture is sufficient. Scripture is God’s Word and it speaks sufficiently clearly. Because Scripture is God’s word to man, the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17). Even when it is difficult to understand, the Spirit invites us to patiently wrestle with it. But all the most necessary information is clearly set forth. It is not fuzzy. It is not unclear. If the Bible says that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures, there is nothing ambiguous about it. All men must stand before this Word and either submit and believe or else rebel and deny it. But submission to what the Scriptures clearly say is not a matter of individualistic interpretation. It’s a matter of objective meaning and truth.

As it turns out, the places where opinions diverge tend to be those places where traditions diverge, but these are not (for the most part) on matters central to the gospel. Otherwise, you accuse the apostles of messing up massively, and if you do that, you accuse Jesus of gross failure to train His men well enough for the job (Acts 1:2, 8). But this diversity of opinion of interpretation within the Church means that Jesus intended His holy, catholic, and apostolic Church to be a diverse place, a body of believers committed to the core tenets of the gospel as articulated in the Scriptures with a significant diversity of traditions beyond that. But again, this is not an unfortunate defect; this is a design feature. The God who wrestled with Jacob and sparred with Job and sent His Son into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, is the same God who poured His Spirit out on the Church to lead her into all truth. Scribes and Pharisees are always nervous about the messiness of this process, and accuse the Spirit of relativism and individualism. But there is only One Lord Jesus Christ, one God and Father of us all, and One Holy Spirit who binds us all into One. There is one baptism, one cup, one loaf, and we all partake of that unity.

Sola Scriptura is not the camel’s nose of individualism or relativism under the side of the ecclesiastical tent, but the sliver of truth in that caricature is that God apparently does love the myriad of gifts and perspectives that individuals bring to His Body. This is not relativism, but this is Truth that relates, Truth that incarnates, Truth that got born in a barn and later grew a beard. This Truth is fixed and abides forever, and it is Truth that frees and liberates all men everywhere to grow up into the glorious unity and diversity inherent in His Word.