“Welcome to the battlefield,” writes Ross Douthat in the New York Times yesterday. That sentence concludes a piece in which he responds to a letter sent to the Times by a sizable group of Catholic scholars, and that letter, in turn, was written in response to a series of columns by Douthat, particularly one two weeks ago.

I find the “battlefield” image inappropriate for a dispute over what God asks of us. Have we not had enough of killing as a response to religious difference? Nevertheless I am finding myself fascinated by the disagreement Douthat has waded into.

Christ_Pantocrator_mosaic_from_Hagia_SophiaThe substantive question at issue is whether divorced Catholics can be allowed to take Communion, or whether, as is the current posture of the church, those once ostensibly married have to have their marriages annulled before Communion is again available to them. Pope Francis recently convened a synod of bishops on the family. Douthat has written that Pope Francis wants to move the Church in a more liberal direction on the question of divorce. “[He] deliberately started this civil war,” Douthat wrote in September. (Again with the inappropriate military metaphors.)

That question of divorce has some interest for me but only a little. The annulment process in Roman Catholicism has long seemed to this outsider a convenient workaround for the New Testament’s bracing clarity that divorce is wrong (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7, etc.). I have focused more on those evangelicals who decry homosexuality as a sin (a topic on which Jesus is silent and Paul unclear) but who pass over divorce in silence (where clarity abounds in the New Testament).

Much more interesting to me is where we look for authority about what God asks of us. I know this question makes some people uncomfortable. But if you believe that there is right and wrong in the world (you do, don’t you?) and that you should try to do right things, you have to ask (don’t you?) who or what has the authority to say what is right and what is wrong.

For many Evangelicals, the answer is the Bible: that’s the sole source of authority. For me, that answer has two huge problems. One is that even a cursory look at how the Bible was assembled in the centuries after Jesus shows a deeply political process among human beings. I love politics as a way to work through disputes but I don’t look to it for Final Answers to Life’s Big Questions. The other problem is that as soon as Protestant reformers begin insisting on the Bible as the sole source of authority we have an explosion of schisms.

The Protestant Reformation’s insistence on the Bible alone as a source of authority was a challenge to the Roman Catholic view that authority is a three-legged stool resting on scripture, tradition, and the church. Ross Douthat is writing about how the Roman Catholic Church draws on these three sources in developing doctrine and teaching its members.  (I think he undervalues the Pope’s interest in keeping the church’s teachings vital and fresh.) The Catholic scholars are saying in their letter that he doesn’t really know understand enough to plunge into this matter. Generally I dismiss out of hand public arguments that someone shouldn’t offer an opinion because s/he doesn’t have the right credentials. In this case I think the Catholic scholars wrote their letter because they took Douthat to be hurling around charges of “heresy,” which considerably ups the stakes and can put people at risk.

On the question of sources of authority, I’ve come to prefer the Roman Catholic view to the Reformation view. Insistence on the Bible alone is a dangerous turn, I believe. (I do nevertheless understand how early Protestant reformers believed the Church had drifted a long way from Bible teachings.) Both the Catholic and the Evangelical answers put the sources of authority somewhere in the past and come dangerously close to saying that we in the present can only mess things up.

For this Quaker (and for many Quakers) there is a sturdier source of authority in the present: in waiting worship to listen for God speaking to us now. The Bible, tradition, and religious figures from the past and present can all prepare us to hear God. These are not to be cast aside. But they are not final sources of authority. Putting weight on waiting worship leads us be reluctant to crystallizing doctrine in creeds, and it leads us to teach through advices and queries rather than long declarative affirmations that some write for others.

The past may have gotten it right about many, many questions, and we’d do well to embrace those answers. Just maybe the past has got it wrong on some questions, however, and we need to find ways to go forward to a better place. I believe God is speaking to each and to all of us, today, and that this is the best source of authority.

[also posted on River View Friend.]

Views: 982

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 7, 2015 at 9:42pm

Come now Bill.  It's just my opinion - just like you have your opinion.  Relax.

Comment by William F Rushby on 11th mo. 7, 2015 at 10:00pm

"Come now Bill.  It's just my opinion - just like you have your opinion.  Relax."

Howard, I am glad to see you express some humility about your own views!

Now, if you could stop labeling other people's views as "IDOLATRY"!  Lay off the mud-slinging, please!

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 7, 2015 at 11:26pm

Bill, out of love for you, I will not upset you any more with my opinion on using the Bible as a mediator to God.  I can see you are obviously very emotionally attached to the Bible as a representative of God, and my opinion about this practice is difficult for you to hear.  Please know that my characterization has not been about you or anyone else - it is just about this practice that many Christians adhere to.  I would like to assure you, though, that I am always OK hearing your opinion about the practice of consulting the Bible to know God.

Everything that can be said by me on this subject has been said, anyway.  And I gladly accept your personal attacks on me, if it brings you some measure of peace.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 8, 2015 at 1:11am

I think there's something everybody is missing here... and probably me as well, since I can't yet get a grip on what it is. More later.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 11th mo. 8, 2015 at 4:54pm

I'm thinking "idolatry" doesn't have to be that great a sin, putting aside the question of whether a Bible under one's pillow is one.  When kids play with dolls, they temporarily suspend disbelief and project "that of god" onto mere clay (more likely plastic), some "I - doll" (a doll with an imputed self).  Tsk tsk, that's in error.  Golden cows aren't god either -- that's breaking half the tablets right there.
I remember my wife and daughter and I lining up to see Mars, through a high end optical telescope way out in the middle of nowhere, long lines (this was when Mars was historically proximal).  My daughter looked through the eye-piece then dutifully gave her stuffed beanie baby (a small rabbit doll) a quick peek.  The volunteer was immediately annoyed:  "don't do that" he said, "it doesn't make any sense" (he was offended by the irrationality of showing Mars to a stuffed rabbit -- the sin of idolatry made manifest).

Lets remember that by Islamic criteria the Sistine Chapel is idolatrous because it turns God into some "manga monstrosity" a cartoon dude with a beard, finger to finger with His creation Adam (such blasphemy!).  Cartoon God is offensive to Islamic tastes, which would prefer purely geometric objects, a more Platonic relationship with divinity if you will (it's baked right into the building code that mosques won't anthropomorphize Allah). 

However I think many liberal-minded Imams (Koran-reading Rabbis) forgive the Christians (Bible-reading Rabbis) their comic book religion.  Look at Hinduism fer chrissake!  It's not like were in any position to abolish idolatry as a common sin.  Humans idolize routinely.  We even think screen images are real (and they may be, real recordings at least -- but sometimes they're just computer generated).

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

William F Rushby commented on William F Rushby's blog post 'From John Woolman on Ministry'
"Keith Saylor: Thanks for your great effort!"
9 hours ago
Keith Saylor commented on William F Rushby's blog post 'From John Woolman on Ministry'
"Hello William, I'm still getting my feet under this project. However, a path is clearing as I…"
yesterday
Mike Shell left a comment for Marcia P Roberts
"Friend Marcia. I don't visit QuakerQuaker much at present, but thanks for…"
yesterday
Mike Shell posted a discussion

An Exposition of Laozi’s “Essence of Dao” by Yun Choi Yeung

Yun Choi Yeung is from Hong Kong and has been living in the United Kingdom since October 2010. In…See More
3rd day (Tue)
Keith Saylor commented on William F Rushby's blog post 'From John Woolman on Ministry'
"Summary, Observations, and Considerations John Woolman's Journal Chapter 8 Paragraph One In…"
3rd day (Tue)
Keith Saylor replied to Keith Saylor's discussion 'From: The Ear of the Soul ...'
"I appreciate this information William."
3rd day (Tue)
Keith Saylor commented on William F Rushby's blog post 'From John Woolman on Ministry'
"Last minute changes. For various reasons I have created a independent framework for Woolman's…"
3rd day (Tue)
William F Rushby replied to Keith Saylor's discussion 'From: The Ear of the Soul ...'
"Branson uses the "ear of my soul" 29 times in her journal, more than any other writer,…"
2nd day (Mon)

© 2020   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service