what happens after sola scriptura?

I am interested to hear your thoughts, comments, and questions regarding the Bible and our interpretation of it.  Do we look to the Bible alone?  Is the Bible the sole authority for our faith and practice?  If so, whose interpretation of the Bible is authoritative (i.e. - Catholics, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Wesleyans, etc.)?  This article by Blake Huggins offers one option.  Check it out and chime in on the discussion.

By Blake Huggins (Posted Originally on Emergent Village):

“You emergent-y, postmodern-ish types just want to do away with Scripture! You don’t want to take the time to seriously wrestle with the Bible!”

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard those lines or something similar. You would think I developed a good answer a long, long time ago but I didn’t. For far too long I only spoke about the ways I didn’t want to view Scripture, which really only exacerbated the problem. Too many of us do that. I would like to suggest an alternative descriptive to our view of Scripture, something that is both positive and constructive.

Phyllis Tickle has suggested that it’s not if Sola Scripturaends, but when. So what comes next? As much as I love to tag the “p word” before words, I’m not so sure it is sufficient for us to simply say we are post-Sola Scriptura. The Bible is too important for us to only strike-through the “sola.” And I think that many of us who resonate very deeply with Tickle’s sentiment take Scripture too seriously to only be reactionary. Frankly, we can’t afford to.

We might as well deal with the Elephant in the room first. For many people, admitting that Sola Scriptura is not longer viable is roughly equivalent to saying we are throwing out the Bible altogether and opting for some sort of slippery relativism. But a rejection of Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of Scripture! Which is why it is important to provide an alternative to the “sola” — because we’re not rejecting Scripture wholesale, in fact I can say without reservation that my respect and love for the Bible is deeper and more unwavering now than it ever was.

But here’s the thing. Whether we realized it in the past or not Sola Scriptura has never been possible. It just can’t work. Because the moment I say that all I need is Scripture alone, I’ve assumed that I occupy some sort of void space, when in fact neither I nor Scripture exist vacuum. I can’t simply read Scripture (or anything for that matter) for what it is without biases or lenses. My position as an urban, white, American, male influences my reading more than I will ever know. The same could be said of the writers of Scripture. Even the notion of Sola Scriptura itself is conditioned by a cultural lens and a certain interpretation albeit an increasingly outmoded one. To read is to interpret; all our readings are always already interpretations and all our interpretations are always already situational. To me, that is inescapable.

So, admitting the immanent end of Sola Scriptura is not a categorical rejection of Scripture as much; rather, it is a coming to terms with our own limitations and finitude as human beings and adopting a certain humility about our readings. I seriously doubt whether the Bible is infallible since it was written by pre-modern men (yes, they were men). But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the Bible is authoritative or instructional. It merely means that I believe our ability as humans to fully understand the Bible is severely limited. The history of hermeneutics is indicative of this. We can very quickly identify points today where we believe our theological ancestors were absolutely wrong in their interpretation of Scripture (slavery, subjugation of women, etc.). I’m sure 50-100 years from now our grandchildren will say the same about us. We know things today that we didn’t know in the past and we don’t know things now that we will in the future. That deeply affects out readings. We are fallible, broken people. We need to hold our hemeneutical lenses loosely.

But how do we avoid simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Here is what I propose: let’s use a new word, a word that still retains a deep sense of respect and affection for the Scriptures and the history of God’s salvific action in history with God’s people. A word that doesn’t allow the spirit of the Reformation (and the Enlightenment) to crust over into static dogma. I like the word prima. Prima Scriptura. Scripture is without a doubt our primary authority and primary source for theological reflection, but is not and cannot be our sole source. We are more complex than that. Scripture is our prime witness to God’s interaction with God’s people, beckoning them/us to join in God’s divine endeavor of restoration and renewal. It seems to me that opting for a phrase such as this preserves our identity as Christians whose story and history is told in the Bible, but at the same admits our limitations, approaching divine revelation with deep humility, and understanding that we get it wrong all the time so we mustn’t hold our readings so tightly because they are fallible. What better way to remain open and attentive to the movement and dynamism of the Spirit? A Spirit that no matter how limited and broken we have become, meets us exactly where we are pushes us — and our readings of Scripture — toward continual transformation and revision.

Let us celebrate the end of Sola Scriptura. But let’s not stop there. Let’s provide a healthy alternative, something that still places its trust in the Holy Writ as the primary source for revelation and yet is still open to continual revision and divine redaction. Let us embrace Prima Scriptura.