![\"Did](\"https:\/\/infanttheology.files.wordpress.com\/2015\/12\/martinluther.jpg?w=300\")
Post by Nathan Rinne<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n First of all, what is a \u201chermeneutical democracy\u201d? The popular blogger Rod Dreher recently talked about an article by Abilene Christian University professor Richard Beck. In the article<\/a>, Beck points out the complexity that lies behind the word \u201cProtestant\u201d, and urges Protestants to own the fact that they \u201chave never<\/em> agreed on what the Bible says.\u201d Rod Dreher goes on to say:<\/p>\n Beck goes on to make what I think is a solid point: that what Protestant churches and organizations are really doing in these [contemporary] debates [about same-sex marriage] are trying to find out if its membership wants to change, and if so, how much change will it accept. The truth is, says Beck, is that Protestantism is a \u201chermeneutical democracy,\u201d in which the individual consciences of believers determine what is true and what is false. This, he says, is the \u201cgenius of the tradition,\u201d and having to do all this \u201crelational work\u201d is a key part of what it means to be Protestant. The Bible doesn\u2019t speak for itself; it has to be interpreted, and for Protestants, that means that everybody gets a vote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, Beck is making the case that saying something like we \u201chave a biblical view of sexuality\u201d, for example, is not enough. And this kind of \u201chermeneutical democracy\u201d- like thinking would seem, on the face of it, to track well with what Stephen Fowl, in his 2008 book \u201cEngaging Scripture\u201d, says: \u201c\u2026theological convictions, ecclesial practices, and communal and social concerns should shape and be shaped by biblical interpretation\u201d and<\/em> \u201cBiblical interpretation will be the occasion of a complex interaction between the biblical text and the varieties of theological, moral, material, political, and ecclesial concerns that are part of the contexts in which they find themselves.\u201d (p. 60) (I addressed the problems with this kind of statement the fourth footnote in my previous post<\/a>).<\/p>\n Not only this, but all of this put me in mind of the complexity of another term associated with Protestants: \u201cnon-denominational\u201d. In the online theology classes I teach on basic Christianity, I always bring up this term.<\/p>\n What does this mean? I would say that at its best, \u201cnon-denominational\u201d is used in order to avoid denominational labels (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) \u2013 all with the good intention<\/em> of drawing interested persons into environments where Jesus Christ and the Scriptures of what we might call \u201chistoric, biblical Christianity\u201d are at the center. It has had some real appeal with some, because there really are things that many who bear the name of Christ have historically agreed on: e.g., that the Bible is God\u2019s word, that the church\u2019s Creeds are basically correct (even if it is not recited in worship), etc.<\/p>\n All this said, in practice the word \u201cnon-denominational\u201d has, at least until recently, tended to track not just with some pan-Protestant ethos, but particularly with an American evangelical form of theology<\/em> that embraces not infant baptism, but believer\u2019s baptism. How many \u201cnon-denominational\u201d churches do you know of that are actually willing to baptize infants (and if any do, they certainly do not embrace the idea of baptismal regeneration)?<\/p>\n But what does the term \u201cnon-denominational\u201d signify today?<\/em> I always ask my students this, and it seems they increasingly have no idea. Among those who are willing to take a stab at giving a definition, many give the impression that \u201cnon-denominational\u201d no longer means something like \u201cevangelical\u201d, but rather \u201cwhatever I think Christianity means\u201d. In short, any group or individual<\/em> wanting to be identified in some way with the group called \u201cChristianity\u201d \u2013 even those who do not assume the Bible is God\u2019s word \u2013 can be \u201cnon-denominational\u201d.<\/p>\n And for some in this \u201chermeneutical democracy\u201d called \u201cChristianity\u201d, a key assumption is that the meaning of the Bible is all really rather unclear \u2013 and that those \u201con the right side of history\u201d will end up winning the day by interpreting it as they see fit and necessary (again, see my last post mentioned above). Not so much because this will be decided by some vote, but because, as Beck says, \u201cwhat you are searching for is a hermeneutical consensus<\/em>, the degree to which your community can tolerate certain hermeneutical choices.\u201d<\/p>\n How to respond to all of this?<\/p>\n First of all, as I have said in the past, \u201cwhile we should not think that a sincere agnostic, truly seeking to understand the Bible as a complete work, would come up with the Nicene Creed, what Mark Twain said about the Scriptures is certainly relevant here: \u2018It ain\u2019t those parts of the Bible that I can\u2019t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.\u2019 Certainly, as we all know, there are some interpretations that certain words, whatever their context may be, will simply eliminate from the get go.\u201d Those who are able to carefully explore the Bible can indeed begin<\/em> to grasp and understand what it is all about.<\/p>\n Second, it should be pretty obvious to all of us that tradition is not a nothing either. In Martin Chemnitz\u2019s great work critiquing the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, what he wrote clearly indicates the Lutherans believed in \u201cHoly Tradition.\u201d (something the 1580 Lutheran Confessions, the Book of Concord<\/em><\/a>, clearly attest to as well)\u00a0 A paper my pastor wrote some years ago nicely breaks down the issue:<\/p>\n \u201cThe concept of a contemporaneous existence of the Word of God in a corrupted verbal form, and a pure written form, spawned Chemnitz\u2019s explanation of traditiones in the second locus, De traditionibus. Here he lists the first of eight different types of traditiones as\u2026<\/p>\n Chemnitz rejects only the eighth kind of tradition: traditions pertaining to faith and morals that cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture; but which the Council of Trent commanded to be accepted and venerated with the same reverence and devotion as the Scripture.<\/p>\n The important element of this last of the traitiones appears not to be the fact that such traditions of faith and morals not provable from Scripture actually existed, but that their status of equality with Scripture was foisted upon the church by the Council of Trent.\u201d<\/em> (italics mine) [i]<\/a><\/p>\n Now, this does not mean that confessional Lutherans do not need to do any \u201crelational work\u201d Beck says that Protestants must do. It just means that our overall context is \u2013 or should be! \u2013 much larger than the useful shorthand \u201cScripture alone\u201d can capture. Again, the existence of things like Creeds and Confessions speak to this reality. Useful shorthand should not become unthinking slogans.<\/p>\n And speaking of such slogans, Beck says \u201cOwn your Protestantism\u2026 The ultimate authority in Protestantism isn\u2019t the Bible, it\u2019s the individual conscience<\/em>.\u201d But the problem is this: the idea of a \u201chemeneutical democracy\u201d is clearly not only a Protestant issue \u2013 the progressive wing of the Roman Catholic Church has shown us that in spades in recent months. This kind of thing happens in quarters of Dreher\u2019s own Eastern Orthodox Church as well (see here<\/a>).<\/p>\n Is the issue really Martin Luther\u2019s purported emphasis on the \u201cindividual conscience\u201d \u2013 and the related problem \u201cprivate interpretation\u201d? Or, ultimately, is the issue whether or not the Bible is clear and understandable in its core message? <\/em>The Ancient church said that it was clear. The Lutheran Confessions and those who adhere to them also assume \u201cyes\u201d. I tend to think that most everyone else \u2013 Protestant or not \u2013 will fudge on this critical issue in one way or another (see here<\/a> for more)<\/p>\n FIN<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Notes:<\/p>\n [i]<\/a> P. Strawn, Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz, in Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, Wolfenbu\u201dttleler Forschungen, Bd. 85, Hrsg. v. David C. Steinmetz, Wiesbaden 1999, p. 213-14. See more excellent stuff from Strawn here<\/a>. If you would like to read more of Strawn\u2019s material, I used some of it in a debate with R.C. apologist Dave Armstrong in this series of posts<\/a> (three parts \u2013 here is the last round<\/a>). Of this debate, Armstrong said to me: \u201cI think you have argued your case well. I commend you, and you have earned my respect, without question (including very much so, your cordiality)\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Post by Nathan Rinne First of all, what is a \u201chermeneutical democracy\u201d? The popular blogger Rod Dreher recently talked about an article by Abilene Christian University professor Richard Beck. In the article, Beck points out the complexity that lies behind the word \u201cProtestant\u201d, and urges Protestants to own the fact that they \u201chave never agreed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2184,"featured_media":2721,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[489,125,488],"class_list":["post-2720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-denominations","tag-hermeneutics","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"One](\"https:\/\/infanttheology.files.wordpress.com\/2014\/06\/trent2.jpg?w=201\")
\n
![\"Not](\"https:\/\/infanttheology.files.wordpress.com\/2015\/12\/democracyofdead.jpg?w=300\")