To continue with one of my observations of the theology and practice of the Plymouth Brethren, I do want to point out that their apparent disregard for historical theology (the thoughts and work that the Spirit had done through the comments of men who had gone before them) is, at least in part, due to the over-emphasis that they placed on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. It seems to have led to the "no creed but the Bible" mentality that appears prominent in American Christianity today. The idea that, if one were simply not to allow himself to be eschewed by the theologies of the past, then his interpretation is more likely to remain acute because he has not developed any presuppositions that he use to bend the meaning of the text to his desires.
I think that it is this sort of mindset that acts as a Pietre dish for heresies and cultism, feed by arrogance. This to me seems naive for a number of reasons. First, the person generally speaking, is not going to be reading the text in its original languages, so his interpretation will already be influenced "from the outside" by the editors of whatever English translation he is using. Second, and now let's just take for granted that this man is reading his bible in the original languages, this idea has to assumes that the Spirit, if the would-be interpreter of the Word has no historical influences, would teach him every right thing that He had taught all other interpreters from the past. Lastly, it would do us well to consider this: the primary means God uses today to physically heal our bodies is not having the infirm sit alone in prayer (though God can certainly heal this way if He pleased), our healing is more likely to come from God, through the means (means which He has ordained and of which He is in control) of medications and the common wisdom He has given to medical professionals. Likewise, the primary means God uses today (and for the past 4-5 millennia) to heal our minds of sickly and deficient theologies is not having the infants or mature in the faith, sit alone in prayer with their bible (though God does teach us the right ways of scripture in our personal bible studies), our theological healing is much more likely to come from God, through the means (means which He has ordained and of which He is in control) of the preaching and teaching of the Word that we hear from live men, and the preaching/teaching and comments men of old, with which we have been blessed. I don't mean to suggest that historical theology is authoritative, nor inerrant, just that (along with the preaching/teaching of men today, which by the way as soon as it has been spoken or published, it has become part of the total of historical theology) it is a. I also don't mean to suggest that we should consume every word of our favorite theologian (live or dead) without question, as though it was mother's milk, but neither should we act as though we are lactose intolerant--Historical theology is a vital part of our rightly understanding the Word of God, and we balance that with the Berean principle.
I believe that we can observe one of the methodologies/practices that logical result from "anti-confessionalism" (a term which I believe also encompasses a disregard for historical theology) in the Brethren movement. Their misinterpretation of and over-emphasis on the priesthood of the believer was not balanced by the teaching of scripture on the offices of local church leaders, and their God-given capacity to teach and shepherd the flock God has given them, thus the anti-clerical aspect of the movement. This is the conclusion that must fnally be drawn from a disregard of historical theology, and too high a regard for my ability to rightly interpret God's Word void of outside influences.
Just a word of personal application, I've learned lots of things in my personal bible study, while meditating on it in prayer, but some of it I later learned was heresy, and I allowed myself to be corrected by smarter men, and the interpretations granted them by the Spirit. Take for instance, the formulation of the way we talk about the Triune nature of God. As a young Christian, I easily could have come away from my preliminary readings of the New Testament as a convinced "modalist", but only when confronted by the historical theology of the Trinity, was my understanding set straight
I wonder if the aversion to historical theology, and its importance in the development of our understandings of scripture, is in some degree due to a Protestant reaction to the Magisterium (teaching authority) of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. But as a survey of the history of the Reformation would quickly show, the doctrine of sola scriptura was never set in opposition to the importance of the guidance we are to receive from our pastors/elders/teachers, nor was it intended to excuse a disdain for the importance historical theology. The formulation of the doctrine of sola scriptura was to define authority not importance or resourcefulness. So, perhaps anti-confessionalism and anti-clericalism is an overreaction to the final authority that the Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops taunted over their parishioners.
I believe that we can observe one of the methodologies/practices that logical result from "anti-confessionalism" (a term which I believe also encompasses a disregard for historical theology) in the Brethren movement. Their misinterpretation of and over-emphasis on the priesthood of the believer was not balanced by the teaching of scripture on the offices of local church leaders, and their God-given capacity to teach and shepherd the flock God has given them, thus the anti-clerical aspect of the movement. This is the conclusion that must fnally be drawn from a disregard of historical theology, and too high a regard for my ability to rightly interpret God's Word void of outside influences.
Just a word of personal application, I've learned lots of things in my personal bible study, while meditating on it in prayer, but some of it I later learned was heresy, and I allowed myself to be corrected by smarter men, and the interpretations granted them by the Spirit. Take for instance, the formulation of the way we talk about the Triune nature of God. As a young Christian, I easily could have come away from my preliminary readings of the New Testament as a convinced "modalist", but only when confronted by the historical theology of the Trinity, was my understanding set straight
I wonder if the aversion to historical theology, and its importance in the development of our understandings of scripture, is in some degree due to a Protestant reaction to the Magisterium (teaching authority) of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. But as a survey of the history of the Reformation would quickly show, the doctrine of sola scriptura was never set in opposition to the importance of the guidance we are to receive from our pastors/elders/teachers, nor was it intended to excuse a disdain for the importance historical theology. The formulation of the doctrine of sola scriptura was to define authority not importance or resourcefulness. So, perhaps anti-confessionalism and anti-clericalism is an overreaction to the final authority that the Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops taunted over their parishioners.
1 comment:
I think your assessment is essentially correct. From the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a slide downward to the outright rejection of the authority of the church officers as we experience in our own day. The Catholic - Protestant battles over the British Isles that took place through the 17th century led to both sides being weary of fighting, and to a general spirit of cooperation that began to emerge in the 18th century. (Of course, the Protestants eventually gained control of the English throne by means of William of Orange. But that's a story for another time.) The Evangelical Movement started in the 18th century, and we see examples of it in men like the Wesleys, Whitfield, and John Newton. Newton held Bible studies where all were welcome, no matter denominational affiliation, and he even had one or two Quakers attend on occasion, demonstrating just how diverse the participants were. That would have never happened in 17th century England. The early Reformers had regained the personal nature of salvation without detracting from the importance of church membership and corporate worship. The personal nature has come to dominate such that nothing else is believed to matter in our day.
So the slide went like this: Catholic to Anglican to Presbyterian to Congregational to complete independence. In each step there is a movement from high liturgy to low or even no liturgy, a high view of church authority to a low view or no church authority, a high view of the sacraments to a low view or even no sacraments, and from a more public to a more privatized spirituality. The slide in the sacraments included not only the question of the efficacy of the sacraments, but the recipients of the sacraments as well, such that you have the rejection of Infant Baptism in some circles and the emergence of the Believer's Baptism only position.
So it was in this historical context that the Plymouth Brethren emerged. While there was some eventual debate over who could participate in worship with the Brethren, the original idea was very much so one of Christian brethren meeting together and worshiping and partaking of the Lord's Supper apart from any denominational affiliation. They simply carried on what Evangelicals like Newton and the Revivalists of the first Great Awakening had begun. That's not to say the Brethren didn't go farther than the ones before them did, or that I don't hold these men in high regard for much of what they did. Nonetheless, I have some disagreements with some of their teaching and actions. The Revivalists acted outside of and even contrary to the authority of the church. When they didn't get the church's backing, they went the more populist route of writing and advertising in the newspapers. And since they couldn't use church buildings, they took other approaches (did they set up tents? I can't recall.)
Of course, the Brethren did end up having their own "church authority", which was often used rather unjustly. But recounting that history would take much more time and space.
Post a Comment