Luther, authority, and Anglicans
Recent commemorations of the
500th anniversary of Martin Luther and the beginning of the
Protestant Reformation have often highlighted the two central tenets of
Luther’s thought: sola fide (salvation is by faith alone, not works) and sola
scriptura (scripture is the only source of truth). (For an especially good
recapitulation of Luther’s life and work, follow this link
to an article in the New Yorker by Joan Acocella, “How
Martin Luther Changed the World.”)
The second of those tenets –
sola scriptura – represents a key distinction between fundamentalists and other
Christians. Historically, Anglicans have stood firmly with the majority and opposed
fundamentalism. Notably, the largest block of non-fundamentalists and by far
Christianity’s largest Church is the Roman Catholic Church that affirms
scripture as a source of truth but complements it with the Church’s teaching
magisterium. This latter source of authority is most fully embodied in the Pope,
particularly in his capacity to speak ex-cathedra.
Anglicans traditionally
affirmed three sources of authority: scripture, tradition, and reason. The
twentieth century brought growing recognition that the brain indissolubly
intertwines reason, emotion, and experience. Consequently, the Anglican source
of authority labelled reason is frequently understood to embrace this more
robust and complete understanding of how the brain functions.
Rejecting Luther’s sola
scriptura has benefitted Anglicanism in at least three ways. First, having
three sources of authority best coheres with how human cognition functions. No
person ever receives any form of input – verbal or otherwise – without physically
processing that input in his/her brain. In other words, reason shapes a person’s
understanding of the input. Illustratively, try reading Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Unless one happens to be fluent in hieroglyphics, the hieroglyphics may be
considered an unknown language, decorative artwork, or even gibberish. A person
receiving verbal communication, in a language in which one is fluent, will interpret
that input using clues from grammar, usage, word meanings, etc. These clues inherently
entail individual interpretation because each individual has a unique set of mental
images associated with each unit of syntax. For example, words as simple as red
(what exact shade?) and run (what stride, what pace?) evoke different images in
different people.
Furthermore, the human brain
operates on the basis of acquired patterns. Each item in human memory is stored
as a separate pattern of synopses firings. Processing new input (e.g., from
scripture) is not done in the abstract but on the basis of pre-existing
patterns. The Anglican Church similarly processes its current reading of
scripture using reason shaped by the patterns of Christian praxis, i.e., tradition.
Second, as a result of this
interpretive process rooted in human nature and the interplay of three sources
of authority, Anglicanism welcomes theological diversity finding its unity in
common prayer rather than common belief. We pray together even if we believe
differently.
Third, because of the inescapable
dynamic interplay of Anglican’s three sources of authority, Anglicans today do
not believe what Anglicans in the nineteenth century believed; nineteenth
century Anglicans, in turn, did not believe what seventeenth century Anglicans
did. Theology, much to the ire of some, is dynamic and not static.
Sadly, some contemporary Anglicans
overemphasize reliance on scripture, thereby distorting any semblance of an
equal balance between scripture, tradition, and reason. These Anglicans, many
of whom live in the Global South and others of whom are members of groups such
as the Anglican Church in North America, are choosing to separate themselves
from the mainstream Anglicanism. Many of these bishops, for example, have
indicated that they will refuse to attend the next Lambeth Conference to which
all Anglican bishops are invited. Some of these Anglicans oppose the ordination
of women as contrary to scripture; perhaps all of them oppose same sex marriage
for the same reason.
Comments