Skip to main content

A Christian Constitution?

Sola Scriptura My friend Johnny Dee describes the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura as follows, as something that is not entirely cut off from traditions:
protestants consider the Bible to be like the Constitution, and the theological tradition to be like legal precedents from the Supreme Court. When considering how to interpret the Constitution, it is insightful to draw upon Supreme Court precedents. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court is not on the same authoritative par as the Constitution, and the Supreme Court can be overruled when a more faithful interpretation of the Constitution is demonstrated. Likewise, protestants can consistently claim that Scripture is their highest authority, while continuing to draw from the tradition theological tradition that clearly informs their theology. [emphasis mine]
My friendly Catholic rejoinder is to point to another blogger who gives the other side (especially towards the end of his post). The highlights are that sola scriptura is itself unscriptual, and, more, that the Bible actually points to the church and not itself. For example:
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. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 [again, the emphasis is mine. No italics in the Bible that I'm aware of {smirk}]
My own addition to the debate is to observe that most of the books in the Bible are not written as law, but as literature. The rage for constitutions goes back only to the Enlightenment. A legal framework seems to me to impose itself between us and the Book, which could not have been written with it in mind. How could it have been when it was written first? Most of the books in the Bible are about the transmission of a culture and the tools we bring to it ought to take this into account. Laws, after all, flow from cultures. Culture is more durable than law because it is less specific and because it belongs to the entire community and not just to experts. When ruling classes associated with the law become discredited the culture remains - and generates anew. Thus it can accommodate new things without being revised and rewritten to the point where someone might legitimately ask if it is the same old law code at all. A law code being reworked over the years is like a car in which all of the parts are replaced. Is it the same car? My answer would be no. The blueprint that made the car is not affected by the turnover. It is still the original blueprint and this, I think, illustrates some of the wisdom that went into the creation of the Bible. It was always intended to be something deeper and more enduring than the civilization or the nation it happened to find itself in. In a very important sense, Israel is more than a mere nation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi