Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm, Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004).
In Evangelicals and Scripture,[i] Bacote, Miguelez, and Okholm have assembled several essays that explore the Evangelical doctrine of Scripture.[ii] In this short review, I will look at John R. Franke’s essay, “Scripture, Tradition and Authority.”[iii] This essay seeks to explore the historical and theological relationship between Scripture and tradition, and thereafter seeks to set forth an account of authority that preserves the ‘norming’ status of Scripture, as well as maintain the significance of tradition (193). This essay contends that sola scriptura was never intended to exclude tradition entirely, contrary to what some Evangelicals today might believe. Indeed, it was not the intent of the Reformers to abolish any and all references to tradition in either biblical interpretation, or theology. The essay seeks to demonstrate a link between pneumatology and tradition as coinherent sources for the church’s authority. Franke argues a postfoundationalist stance, as authority is perceived to be in the Spirit rather than the text or the tradition, both of which were constituted by the Spirit.
Unfortunately, the Evangelical doctrine of sola scriptura is often perceived to be compromised by any invocation of extracanonical authority, Franke contends (192). In the early church, however, Scripture and tradition were not perceived as exclusive of one another, but as coinherent instead (193). They viewed the whole of the kerygma to be present only in both Scripture and tradition, as they both issue forth from the common source of divine revelation.
By the 16th century, however, three schools of thought regarding this relationship may be identified: 1) all truth is contained and disseminated through the holy writ, 2) only part of the Christian revelation is contained in the holy writ, with other parts of it within the oral traditions of the church, and 3)the Holy Spirit abides in the church continually and imparts new revelation as it/he/she sees fit (197). The Catholic theologians at Trent agreed that the Scriptures did not contain the entirety of revelation, and thus were not fully sufficient as a source of doctrine for the church. A hardening of both sides, the Catholic and the Protestant respectively, ensued (199-200). Protestant thinkers rejected the Catholic claim to infallible ecclesiastical authority, relying instead upon Scripture interpreting itself (200).
However, Franke concedes that Scripture must be interpreted, and that this activity is invariably shaped by the cultural context of the interpreter. Thus, a “pure” reading of the Scriptures is a self-deception (201). So, which has priority – the Scriptures or the church tradition? Well, both. Indeed, Scripture is authoritative because it is the vehicle through which the Spirit speaks. The Christian tradition (i.e. composed of the Christian community) likewise has authority, for it is a vehicle through which the Spirit speaks. Indeed, for apart from the Christian community, the Christian bible would not exist (202). Thus, inspiration includes the composition of individual writers in the production of the bible, but also in the communities that brought these Scriptures into a unitive construct. What unifies the Scriptures and the communally-derived tradition is the same working-out of the Spirit (204).
Franke is less than clear regarding his conceptioning of inspiration and illumination, which he discusses in his explication of the present work of the Spirit in relation to the texts on pages 204-205. He could be interpreted as to think that the Spirit once inspired the Scriptures, and now only illuminates the readers of the once-inspired Scriptures. However, this interpretation would be, seemingly, against the thrust of his essay to that point. He contends that illumination has not ceased with the closing of the canon, which implies that he may think that inspiration has in fact ceased (ref. 204).
Nevertheless, this criticism aside, Franke constructively proposes that the Protestant slogan sola scriptura does not imply authority apart from the tradition of the church, its creeds, its teaching, and its liturgy (204). In part, this is because the authority of Scripture, as well as that of tradition derive from the same Spirit, and are each contingent on the work of the Spirit (205). A nonfoundationalist’s conceptioning of the Spirit’s work in the production of Scripture and tradition leads to a greater appreciation of the significance of each (206). The church must thus grapple with the meaning(s) of Scripture in its context, awaiting the Spirit to speak afresh through Scripture in continuity with the Spirit-directed trajectory of Christian tradition (207). Indeed, for the goal of theology is practical – i.e., right living – and as such, tradition provides an essential component in this process, as it provides the context for authentic interpretation and performance (208-209).
Franke contends, then, that the functioning of Scripture as the ‘norming norm’ supports the Reformers postulation of sola scriptura. However, conceptions of sola scriptura that seek eclipse the significance of Christian tradition directly or indirectly, must be abandoned (210). Instead, Scripture and tradition must function together, through the empowering work of the Spirit.
[i] Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm, Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004).
[ii] The editors note that there is no “one” Evangelical” doctrine of Scripture, but many perspectives instead. All of the authors seek to understand how finite humans can make sense of the relationship between the divine word, written by fallible humans, and the living God, who continues to work through this word and his people (7).
[iii] John R. Franke essay, “Scripture, Tradition and Authority,” in Bacote, Miguélez, and Okholm, Evangelicals and Scripture, 192-210.