Related articles and links |  1 of 4

CHRISTOPHER HALL BELIEVES in the Reformation principle of Scripture Alone. But he doesn't think we should read the Bible alone—that is, in isolation from those who have gone before us.

Hall, one of the key evangelical theologians calling us to pay attention to the leaders of the early church, has written Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers (IVP, 1998) and Learning Theology with the Church Fathers (IVP, 2002). He is currently writing Praying with the Church Fathers, the third volume in that series. He is the associate editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (IVP), which gathers the church fathers' observations on Scripture passages from sermons, commentaries, and letters into a verse-by-verse commentary. Hall, who is professor of biblical and theological studies at Eastern University, will present a paper titled "The Role of Tradition in Evangelical Theology" during the American Academy of Religion's annual meeting in late November.

Because this is unfamiliar territory to many CT readers, editor David Neff recently asked Hall to explain how he actually puts the Fathers to use.

There is a traditional Protestant skepticism of tradition. Did you personally have to overcome that?

My introduction to the faith was as a Jesus freak in the early '70s. And so I was never taught anything concerning the broader tradition of the church. There was, however, a negative atmosphere toward things Catholic or Orthodox. My first teachers and I went directly to the text of Scripture. The idea of taking a good look at the church's reflection as a community over the centuries regarding a text was really never brought up.

With all the enthusiasm that you and your friends show for the Great Tradition, how do you sort the quirky and unhelpful elements from the truthful and the spiritually helpful?

In a recent issue of Touchstone, editor David Mills said (I'm paraphrasing), It's nice for evangelicals to get excited about tradition. But if you're going to embrace the Great Tradition, you have to embrace it all—not only that earliest period, but the Tradition as it has grown and developed over the years. From his perspective, you can't just pick and choose.

Now, that's not my position, and I don't think that's Tom Oden's or Daniel Williams's. The way I'm working this through is to use the metaphor of a seed—a seed that contains the DNA of the gospel as represented in the Scripture. And that seed is planted in the ground (the ground being the community of the church filled with the Spirit), and the seed grows and develops from the late first century right down to our time. And as the community develops doctrinally—often in response to heretical points of view—the DNA manifests itself in communal decisions represented, for example, by the first four ecumenical councils. The seed continues to develop as the church meets new issues and continues to respond to new ideas in terms of what the Scriptures mean to say.

Where I differ from David Mills (and one of the reasons I cannot make my way into the Roman communion) is that I remain convinced that it's possible for the church to err as it looks at Scripture. There can be growth within the tradition that doesn't match up well with that original gospel DNA.

Roman theologians would say that decisions made by the magisterium [teaching authority] of the church are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. And because key decisions by church councils and the magisterium are made under the guidance of the Spirit, those decisions are infallible. I remain unconvinced that this is always the case.

next page... |  1 of 4

November 2003, Vol. 47, No. 11