2 of 4

Why?

Well, it's that Protestant principle. When I look at certain decisions the church has made, for example, regarding the conception, person, and role of Mary, I don't think that there's enough original gospel DNA to justify them.

I've just re-read Your Word is Truth, the most recent statement by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I was struck that even the Roman theologians seemed to acknowledge that the biblical basis for the immaculate conception of Mary was quite slim. And yet, Pope Pius IX in the 19th century made the decision to promulgate that as dogma.

The problem that I and all Protestant theologians face is trusting that my understanding of Scripture is more valid than that of the Roman theologians who met in the 19th century. However, I'm not making my decision autonomously but in community with other Protestant exegetes and theologians over the years who have looked at the DNA and said, No, this is an outgrowth that we're unwilling to acknowledge to be valid.

So it is a communal decision. Believe me, if all the trusted voices that I look to in the Protestant communion for guidance were to say, We really do think this is a valid growth of the tradition, then I'd take a step back and feel I had to think this through again. But I see the church under God's providence as being broader than simply the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic communion.

Does this also have to do with sort of a Protestant evangelical approach to theology—which is to ask first what the Bible says and only then ask what the church has said in the past?

That pattern is deeply ingrained in me. I did not grow up Catholic, so I don't know what it would have been like to have been taught from the word go, "Listen to your church well, and we'll explain to you what the Scripture means, but that book is not meant for you directly. It's a mediated text."

I believe that you can verify experientially in the lives of many people that the text of Scripture is for all believers, that all believers are invited to that text, and that text welcomes them and can guide them and direct them.

However, having said that, I think evangelicals sometimes go wrong by thinking they don't need the church because it's just me, my Bible, and a radio preacher. Many think they don't need to know the history of the Holy Spirit's working within the church—and I'm including the Spirit's work in the Orthodox church and the Catholic church. The Spirit has worked in all these communions. We've made too many mistakes by acting as if the text of Scripture has just been dropped out of the sky for this generation.

Speaking positively, I think that there is a movement of the Holy Spirit within the broad communion of the church today, drawing us back together to listen to one another carefully. I'm hoping for a cross-pollination to take place. And by God's grace, we'll continue to listen to one another.

The magisterial Reformers and later John Wesley made use of the teachings of the church fathers in a selective way. What can we learn from their selectivity?

There's wisdom there. My approach to the Fathers is not uncritical acceptance. For example, as I've been writing Praying with the Church Fathers, the third volume in my series, I worked through Gregory of Nyssa's sermons on the Lord's Prayer. He reminds us that part of what's involved in calling God "Father" is taking on the family resemblance. In a very strong, helpful way, Gregory calls his reader to holiness, to a life of virtue, to a strong rejection of evil, and to confession of sin.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

November 2003, Vol. 47, No. 11