Postmodernity and Protestantism

[spiritmech]

Jezz said:

I assume he meant the post-modern critique against the modernist idea of an "objective observer" - aka, "positivism". A critique that was spot-on.

It is important to note that the essence of the post-modern critique is not the complete denial of absolute, objective truth. There are some post-modernists who have gone to this extreme; but not all. The essence of post-modernism lies not with the denial of objective truth, but with the acknowledgement that the way an observer interprets data depends not only on the data, but also on the particular circumstances of the observer.

That's roughly what I mean by the post-modern critique. Let me explain in detail:

It's not a mistake that Protestantism rears its head around the time of the Englightenment. The two are inextricably connected.

Sola Scriptura has to assume that one can have direct access to the text of the Bible, apart from the Church. Postmodernity has exposed the illusion of unmediated knowledge.

Only the Church can interpret the Bible. Without the living context of the Church, her saints, and her martyrs, one has no ability to accurately interpret the Holy Scriptures. The recent historico-grammatical perspective of the Bible attempts to give a scientific context to the text, but it is a dead context. It has no real connection to the Faith of the Fathers. Its assumptions are still scientistic, positivistic, and ultimately, unreliable in passing down the Faith Once Given.

That's what I meant when I said "post-modern critique."

The recent postmodernistic versions of Protestantism are interesting, in that they have no criteria for figuring out which practices are worthwhile or not. Now, disconnected from the belief in reason, they will get weirder, not more sane. They were already disconnected from Tradition, and now that they have disconnected from Reason, the circus is really going to start.

Those that are more sane will see that they need a foundation on which to stand on. That foundation is the Church. They will join either the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches as they find that they need the context and life of the Church.

sm

[Kristian Joense]

"Sola Scriptura has to assume that one can have direct access to the text of the Bible, apart from the Church. Postmodernity has exposed the illusion of unmediated knowledge.

Only the Church can interpret the Bible."

No I don't see it like that at all. That is certainly not what I mean when I say I believe in Sola Scriptura.

Only the Church can interpret the Bible.

I basically agree with that as I think that the Bible needs to be interpreted in community. But that doesn't conflict with Sola Scriptura. Sola Sciptura has got to do with what IS your authority not how you INTERPRET that authority.

[themuzicman]

That's a common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura speaks of the primacy of scripture in authority over all things, including tradition.

I do, however, find it odd that the Church, which spawned the Enlightenment through its insistence upon the supremacy of tradition to the point that wars were started over it is now trying to draw some comfort in the idea that the Protestants who seek truth from scripture can't claim certain knowledge from it when the Church has demonstrated an epistemology that is akin to shifting sand.

Michael

[spiritmech]

Perhaps you should explain what you mean when you think of Sola Scriptura. That's definitely how it's used in practice. One is pointed to the "plain meaning" of scripture as if that was the end of the question.
sm

"Sola Scriptura has to assume that one can have direct access to the text of the Bible, apart from the Church. Postmodernity has exposed the illusion of unmediated knowledge.

Only the Church can interpret the Bible."

No I don't see it like that at all. That is certainly not what I mean when I say I believe in Sola Scriptura.




I basically agree with that as I think that the Bible needs to be interpreted in community. But that doesn't conflict with Sola Scriptura. Sola Sciptura has got to do with what IS your authority not how you INTERPRET that authority.

[spiritmech]

That is what I'm critiquing. I'm arguing for either a primacy of tradition (Orthodoxy) or tradition and scripture on equal footing (Catholicism).

The definition of Sola Scriptura as you have pointed out assumes a certain epistemology. That epistemology has been shown to be severely lacking by postmodernity.

sm

That's a common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura speaks of the primacy of scripture in authority over all things, including tradition.

I do, however, find it odd that the Church, which spawned the Enlightenment through its insistence upon the supremacy of tradition to the point that wars were started over it is now trying to draw some comfort in the idea that the Protestants who seek truth from scripture can't claim certain knowledge from it when the Church has demonstrated an epistemology that is akin to shifting sand.

Michael

[themuzicman]

I would be very careful before planting your foot wholeheartedly into post-modernism. It isn't exactly the friend of the EO or the RCC, since it fully undermines any possibility of authority regarding doctrine, including and probably most especially papal heirarchies.

Michael

[Patroclus]

Jezz said:

That's roughly what I mean by the post-modern critique. Let me explain in detail:

It's not a mistake that Protestantism rears its head around the time of the Englightenment. The two are inextricably connected.

Sola Scriptura has to assume that one can have direct access to the text of the Bible, apart from the Church. Postmodernity has exposed the illusion of unmediated knowledge.

Only the Church can interpret the Bible. Without the living context of the Church, her saints, and her martyrs, one has no ability to accurately interpret the Holy Scriptures. The recent historico-grammatical perspective of the Bible attempts to give a scientific context to the text, but it is a dead context. It has no real connection to the Faith of the Fathers. Its assumptions are still scientistic, positivistic, and ultimately, unreliable in passing down the Faith Once Given.

That's what I meant when I said "post-modern critique."

The recent postmodernistic versions of Protestantism are interesting, in that they have no criteria for figuring out which practices are worthwhile or not. Now, disconnected from the belief in reason, they will get weirder, not more sane. They were already disconnected from Tradition, and now that they have disconnected from Reason, the circus is really going to start.

Those that are more sane will see that they need a foundation on which to stand on. That foundation is the Church. They will join either the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches as they find that they need the context and life of the Church.

sm

I think what you are describing is more precisely called "new historicism." It is essentially post-modern, but it avoids some of the linguistic aspects of post-modernist philosophy by focusing more upon the convergence of history and hegemony. I think it is too easy for us people who like post-modernist philosophy a lot to explain Protestantism and Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment in post-modernist terms (I know that I do too much), but Muz is right: post-modernism is no friend to Christianity in general unless one is very precise in his or her critique.

[Pilgrim]

That's a common misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura speaks of the primacy of scripture in authority over all things, including tradition.

I do, however, find it odd that the Church, which spawned the Enlightenment through its insistence upon the supremacy of tradition to the point that wars were started over it is now trying to draw some comfort in the idea that the Protestants who seek truth from scripture can't claim certain knowledge from it when the Church has demonstrated an epistemology that is akin to shifting sand.

Michael

But scripture is not prime over all things. For instance: does scripture have primacy over the Spirit of God, or over God himself?

It's not an easy question because if the answer is yes, then we are lead into the understanding that God's Spirit is no longer moving and that in and of itself seems to contradict the clear teaching of scripture.

[Hegemon]

Sola Scriptura is quite a thorny theological issue. The best formulation of it that I have read is Kevin Vanhoozer's The Drama of Doctrine. What he argues is the essence of sola scriptura is the affirmation that the church can err, and therefore needs prophetic critique to come from outside itself (verbum externum).

I think this is basically right, but we remain in the quandry that it is impossible to intrepret texts except through the lens of a community and tradition. Thus, the Bible can only really be in interpreted as Christian Scripture by the church.

Insofar as we think that sola scriptura means we can have unmediated access to the meaning of the text and/or simply discover it through a process of individual reasoning, sola scripture simply becomes a formalistic principle that is informed by the Enlightenment understanding of autonomy.

But, what the church must do is read the Bible in faith that the speech and presence of the divine author is present in Scripture and can be heard, despite our hermenutical fallenness. If I were to say that I affirm sola scriptura, by that I would have to mean that as a Christian whose life is shaped by the church and its worship, I seek in partnership with others to allow my life and practices to be interrogated and critiqued by Scripture and to submit my life to what it calls me to in light of the gospel of Christ.

If it means that Scripture is the primary source of revelation, it is a heresy, because that role belongs to Jesus Christ and him alone.

[spiritmech]

I think what you are describing is more precisely called "new historicism." It is essentially post-modern, but it avoids some of the linguistic aspects of post-modernist philosophy by focusing more upon the convergence of history and hegemony. I think it is too easy for us people who like post-modernist philosophy a lot to explain Protestantism and Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment in post-modernist terms (I know that I do too much), but Muz is right: post-modernism is no friend to Christianity in general unless one is very precise in his or her critique.

I would agree. But insofar as modernity is a method, the method of postmodernity shows that modernity's method just isn't workable.

Plus, you're the one who started this whole thing by asking what I meant So I blame you.
sm

[themuzicman]

But scripture is not prime over all things. For instance: does scripture have primacy over the Spirit of God, or over God himself?

Scripture is the Word of God. It is how He represents Himself to us. Scripture has authority because it is from God. Thus, by association with God, it has God's authority.

It's not an easy question because if the answer is yes, then we are lead into the understanding that God's Spirit is no longer moving and that in and of itself seems to contradict the clear teaching of scripture.

It's not a 'yes' or 'no' question, since it is God's word, not the Church's.

Michael

[Turgonian]

How do we know we are rightly interpreting the Church's interpretations?

This is an oft-given Protestant rebuttal to the Catholic position. I wonder if there are any adequate answers (and am ready to hear them!). As the famous James White said, 'You've just moved your epistemological problem back a step.'

P.S. How do we know that the Church rightly interprets Scripture? After all, we're concerned about the right interpretation, aren't we? It would seem that exploring the historical and literary context offers a more reliable basis than the interpretations of other men in other contexts.

[spiritmech]

You've just moved your epistemological problem forward a step. Now you have two problems. I only have one.
sm

How do we know we are rightly interpreting the Church's interpretations?

This is an oft-given Protestant rebuttal to the Catholic position. I wonder if there are any adequate answers (and am ready to hear them!). As the famous James White said, 'You've just moved your epistemological problem back a step.'

P.S. How do we know that the Church rightly interprets Scripture? After all, we're concerned about the right interpretation, aren't we? It would seem that exploring the historical and literary context offers a more reliable basis than the interpretations of other men in other contexts.

[Turgonian]

What dost thou mean, gentle Spiritmech?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Scripture is the Word of God. It is how He represents Himself to us. Scripture has authority because it is from God. Thus, by association with God, it has God's authority.Michael

What a sorry mess the authoritarianism of the western Church has devolved into... It was that authoritarianism that gave rist to the Protestant Reformation that took Scripture as its counter to the authoritarian Roman Church in the West... So now Romans and Protestants argue over who has the greatest authority, the Church of the Bible...

Scripture is the original WRITTEN witness of the Church.
The Church is the Body of Christ Who is its Head.
God presented Himself as man in Christ...
God STILL presents Himself as man in the Body of Christ...
God does not represent Himself to us as Scripture...
Christ became man, not a book...
"And greater works than these shall ye do..." [Christ]

The eastern Church has never had this authoritarianistic mess the west is so fixated upon... We SEEK obedience FROM our Church...
Imposition of authority, which violates free will, is unChristian...

The most the east will do is withold communion those who are heretics within the Church, and perhaps exclude them from the Church, and depose clergy - And with real troublemakers, perhaps run them out of the country... But impose authority?? No... We treasure obedience, not authority... Voluntary free obedience...

Arsenios