The Magisterium of the Churches of Christ - Introduction
Hello all:
Allister McGrath claims that the central idea around the Reformation was that each man is entitled to read and interpret scripture for himself. This idea then explains the myraid of denominations that have formed over the last five hundred or so years since Luther nailed his theses to the door of his local parish.
This idea of each man interpreting scripture for himself was vigerously oppossed by the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed (as still does claim) that only the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to Supreme Pontiff and his bishops, had the right to interpret Scripture.
Of course, this caused a major problem.
The Church of Christ, whether it will admit it or not, claims to have a magisterium on scripture. Only the church, through its bishops (journals, college presidents, prominent ministers), has the right to interpret scripture. Anyone who comes to a different understanding of scripture than the one advanced by the magisterium is in error, either intentionally or negligently.
This causes a major problem.
This is especially a huge problem when you determine that something in the magisterium is wrong. If one teaching is incorrect, what keeps all the others from being so? My good friend Mark has stated to me several times that everything that our fellowship has stood for has been debunked. While I don’t know that everything has been, I must state that I believe enough of it has that the magisterium has collapsed in the eyes of thosands of members of Churches of Christ, including myself.
And this causes a major problem.
What do you do when everything that you accepted as concrete suddenly vanishes before you?
For some, it means dumping Christianity altogether.
For others, it means joining another denomination; many are fleeing to The Anglican Communion faster than you can blink an eye.
For still others, it means looking around and trying to salvage what you can, and to attempt to find as much truth as you can. This is where I have been, and it is a scary ride. I have searched scripture, tradition, and history… a very “non sola scriptura” mix. Some of my thoughts and musings have been far from Orthodox from a reformed point of view. For now, though, I think I might finally be back in a normal spot. We’ll see.
In my next post we’ll look at the Magisterium in more detail.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
December 20th, 2007 at 2:53
Interesting topic!
One premise of the Restoration Movement was that people could agree on interpretations of scripture, once they agreed to follow scripture only. That premise has been soundly debunked. And, as you say, that has caused a major problem.
I look forward to the next post!
December 20th, 2007 at 5:56
Clarke,
I agree with Alan. This is a very interesting topic!
One thing to keep in mind as it relates to sola scriptura…McGrath’s interpretation of the doctrine is true of the more radical elements of the reformation, but early in the reformation sola scriptura was far removed from what we see as today’s norm. Luther and Calvin both demanded that the history of the church inform the way we read Scripture. If you get a chance to read it, Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura was very halpful for me in understanding the different views of sola scriptura. I think he fails on a number of points in his critique of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views, but he does an excellent job in showing how the contemporary Protestant view of sola scriptura bears little resemblance to that of the early Reformation.
For still others, it means looking around and trying to salvage what you can, and to attempt to find as much truth as you can. This is where I have been, and it is a scary ride.
Yes, it is. I’ve been going through a paradigm shift for the better part of two years and I’m still not done. It has been rewarding, but it has also been frightening and, at times, exceptionally frustrating. It’s like going from the teenager who thinks he knows everything to getting knocked on your rear-end and realizing that mom and dad actually knew what they were talking about. As rewarding as that can be, it is also a tough road.
I’ll be praying for you and your family.
Blessings in Christ,
Adam
December 20th, 2007 at 6:35
Maybe i’m a tad too self-interested, but i guess i don’t see any need to find wide agreement among others in the views i’m willing to stake my soul on, and i’m not terribly skeptical of a significant portion of our historical positions. i certainly am skeptical of certain trends though. [Have you read anything by Frank Viola?]
i think it’s equally troublesome to think that anything the “magisterium” says should be balked at or dismissed as it is to accept all it says without question. i also think it’s a tad unfair if someone were to say that just because Mr. X thinks his interpretation is the right one, then Mr. X must necessarily be part of the “magisterium” and it’s mindset. That seems more prejudice than honest investigation. i’m inclined to think that many of our folk in history were not duds or status quo authoritarians, and it might do me well to really endeavor to understand why they thought what they thought and why they felt so strongly about their own position before i decide i could do better.
But even if you reject to the point of only having a few fundamentals, i still think there’s enough there to have a place to stand on with no need to ditch Christianity altogether.
December 22nd, 2007 at 13:30
Alan:
It certainly has! My next post will look at hermenutics…even though CENI has been pounded into the ground, especially by yourself, its a huge part of “the magisterium.”
Adam:
Thanks for the info regarding Sola Scriptura. I’ll have to check out the book. I think we must look at history and tradition when considering interpretation. It can be helpful to understand how earlier Christians interpreted the scripture in their own lives and practice.
Guy:
I’m not really looking for wide agreement, I’m more looking for the truth. Of course, we already have the truth, both in Jesus Christ and in the scripture; so, I guess I am looking to come to a proper understanding of the truth.
To quote a radio talk show host I’ve heard a few times, “It’s not who’s right, but what’s right.” Thats what I care about.
I don’t know that I really even reject alot of our historical positions, but I do certainly reject some:
I disagree that instrumental music is sinful or not authorized by scripture.
I disagree with out traditional view of women in the church, and I believe there is a more biblical point of view that we need to embrace…but I’m not as liberal as I am sure some would make me out to be.
I disagree with how we have embraced modernist cultural ideas and have rejected a biblical worldview.
I disagree that the Church of Christ is “the” church, exclusive to all others.
I agree with: Baptism for the Remission of Sins.
I agree that we should take the Lord’s Supper every week.
I agree with Congregational church polity.
I agree that denominationalism is sinful; that being said, I believe that as much as we wish to deny it, we are a denomination! We must be a denomination in protest, as we are clearly not non-denominational.
So, that being said, I don’t think that we should balk at everything “The Magisterium” says, but I think that we must be willing to question everything in light of the fact that much has been debunked.
-Clarke
December 28th, 2007 at 18:29
For you and your readers, please note this is my first post. For introduction, I am a 46 year old Texan born into and raised in the church of Christ. I think I followed a course that you would expect of a male believer,(not that I am into quoting Paul’s list of bonifides) serving the last 7 years as an elder in a congregation. I only consider myself an elder for this congregation; not for all buildings with our name.
I also have been following your site for the last three months, and I enjoy it.
This topic of which you speak is where our congregations grow or stagnate upon. I don’t know if we are liberal or practical at our church but we sing praise songs without a praise team because we don’t have good enough singers to be on the team!
As for your topic, I have often wanted to ask the elders of Oak Hills in San Antonio, as they instigated non-traditional worship and evangelical efforts; “What did you tell your mother?”
Please understand, about the exact time you wrote this blog, I buried my mother in a country spot in South Texas. I think that many of my actions and beliefs were shaped and sustained with her in mind. I have studied, taught, lead, followed and supported many Christians of many faiths in their faith. But I always stayed near to what I first learned, possibly to avoid dishonor or dare say embarrassing her. After all, what is more important in any religion than “Honor thy father and mother”?
Is it possible that the answer to many of your questions, the peace which you seek, is simply that? More importantly to me, what will I do? Hide behind her memory or step out without having to answer to her?
January 3rd, 2008 at 15:57
well, i s’pose i do agree with a few more of our traditions than you. but i’d certainly disagree with some myself. i guess what i haven’t liked is that some of my disagreeing with some established idea has left me without a “replacement” idea. i realize maybe i’ll just have to put forth the effort to study it out and come to a conclusion. but there is a safe and secure feeling about having the “answer”, ya know?
i was wondering what you meant though about the modernist cultural ideas vs. a biblical worldview. could you expand on that?