Theological authority
And historically, you can identify different groups that major on one or another of these sources of authority. Evangelicals claim Scripture as their final authority, and Roman Catholics claim that the church and its traditions are an even higher authority than Scripture. Liberals claim that Reason is our highest authority – and if something in Scripture doesn’t seem to make sense (such as miracles) it can be rejected. And Charismatics claim that present Experiences of the Holy Spirit are more important than the dead letter of the word of God.
This is a helpful diagram because it clearly outlines the four sources of authority, and aids us in our thinking about ongoing Christian discussions. Because while a group may claim to be evangelical, it’s not necessarily so…
You see, sometimes Christians can claim to "believe the Bible" – and yet on closer examination it becomes clear that what’s really driving their reading of the Bible is their church’s tradition. In the end, it’s comfortable and familiar church tradition that trumps Scripture. And while the Roman Catholic church is the outstanding example of a group governed by tradition, they aren’t the only ones…
Christians can also claim to "believe the Bible" – and yet on closer examination it is obvious that they’ll really only accept the things in Scripture that make sense to their reason. And so clear biblical injunctions are downplayed or negated, because "it clearly couldn’t really mean that today." And this doesn’t just happen in far-out liberal churches! And likewise Christians can claim to "believe the Bible" – and yet choose to go with what seems to work in their own experience, rather than the clear teaching of Scripture.
In all of this it’s clear that everyone wants to be an evangelical and be seen to be on about the Bible - and you might even find it in their doctrinal statement! But the truth may be another matter entirely.
Does this mean that evangelicals don’t use reason at all in their thinking? Or that we have no use for church tradition or present day experience? Alternatively, does the diagram mean that all four sources of authority have equal weight? None of those are true. The Quadrilateral is great at outlining the four different sources of authority, but it does a poor job of outlining the relationship between the four!
Here is what I call the Tetrahedron of Authority – and it’s this diagram that explains the proper relationship between the four sources of theological authority.
In this case, Scripture truly is our final authority. However, Christians can also make use of tradition, reason and present day experience – but these are authorities that always remain subservient to Scripture’s own authority.
Christians make use of church tradition when we use church creeds and refer to what earlier Christians have decided (eg. the Apostle’s Creed, the 39 Articles, the Westminster Confession of Faith). It’s not as though we treat them as completely authoritative – but they can serve as a helpful guide in our reading of Scripture.
Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. You probably haven’t gone from first-principles through all of Scripture, and come up with your own formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity from scratch. More likely, you’ve looked at what earlier Christians have said, then compared that with Scripture and exclaimed, "oh yeah, that must be right." But notice it is always Scripture that tests tradition, and not the other way around! And sometimes, a Christian might decide, on reading Scripture, that "no, church tradition is seriously wrong here" – as the brave reformers such as Martin Luther did in the 16th Century.
Similarly, Christians may also make use of reason and experience to aid in our understanding of the Bible – but it is always Scripture that tests our reason and experience – and not the other way around!
[ PS: which of those second-tier sources of authority is your ministry most in danger of swapping in place of Scripture? ]
Categories: Ministry
