It’s All About Me: How a distortion of “sola scriptura” turned American evangelicals into junkies of the self

Snark MeterHIGH.001

(Apostolic Succession for Newbies, Episode One)

Have you noticed the creeping narcissism in the evangelical church?[1]

Perhaps you have noticed it in the architecture as churches have been remade into the image of the places the world gathers: Foyers into coffeehouses, sanctuaries into concert halls, altars into comedy club stages. Candles and incense replaced with light shows and fog machines borrowed from the nightclub scene.

 

images-1

…and that actually is a nightclub.

Perhaps you have noticed it in the songs we sing. The self-referential lyrics (count how often “me” and “I” appear)…the way the act of our worshipping becomes the subject rather than God…how few of our songs are about the nature and glory of God.)

Perhaps you have noticed it in the felt-needs orientation of our preaching  – With topics chosen by focus group and slickly marketed: “Come for our series, ‘Awesome Christian Sex!’” Or the way the preaching of the word of God has been reduced to a mere interruption in the song service (joining announcements and the offering.)

Surely you couldn’t help but notice it in Victoria Osteen’s recent exhortation, “You don’t worship for God. You worship for yourself.Oh, she was criticized her for it, but is this not a message we too are subtly sending? Perhaps Ms. Osteen is just more honest about it?

 Where did this start?

 The great strength of evangelicalism is a desire to reach people where they are with the Good News of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, without a great deal of both self-awareness and self-discipline, our charisms tend to become our curses. As with most problems, our creeping narcissism is an unanticipated consequence – the end result in our culture of 5 centuries of the B-side of Reformers reclamation of the Bible from “ex cathedra” (infallible interpretation by the papacy).  “Sola scriptura” (the scriptures alone), was the rallying cry. Unfortunately, as “sola scriptura” is popularly articulated today, we no longer need a church at all, we are each capable, called even, to be our own sole interpreters of scripture – the Bible is “self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter of itself, and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of doctrine.” [2] In other words, each individual’s head is the ultimate standard…and, just like that, the idea of the “priesthood of the believer” has been elevated to a de facto “papacy of the believer.” No wonder we have 40,000 denominations…and no wonder an increasing number people are choosing to stay home from them. After all, if I am my own pope, then I am my own church…which, come to think of it, comes pretty close to making me my own “god.”

Unknown

Regrettably, this is a wholesale corruption of what the Reformers actually taught. Calvin, Luther, and Cranmer each have notebooks filled with quotations from the early church fathers. Chris Armstrong, editor of Christian History Magazine, writes, “The Reformation is an argument not just about the Bible but about the early Christian fathers, whom the Protestants wanted to claim…you look and you see it everywhere. The Reformers use the Fathers all over the place…Calvin read Augustine…Luther read Jerome. The index of Calvin’s Institutes is filled with an enormous number of quotations from the Fathers. And in the first preface to that work Calvin did his best to show his teachings were in complete harmony with the Fathers. The Protestants…were keen to have ancestors. They knew that innovation was another word for heresy. ‘Ours is the ancient tradition,’ they said. ‘The innovations were introduced in the Middle Ages!’ They issued anthologies of the Fathers to show the Fathers had taught what the Reformers were teaching.”[3] You see, the magisterium, the gathered wisdom of bishops interpreting the scriptures under the lineage of the tradition was not their problem. In fact, they went to great lengths to prove specifically that their teaching was the Fathers!

But alas, we have jettisoned the Reformers’ actual belief in the wisdom of the church’s teachers, whose interpretation was expected to stand in the tradition of the early Fathers. The mess of pottage we have traded it for is a disembodied sound bit. Disengaged from the Reformers reliance on the Fathers, we have what can be cynically referred to as “solo scriptura” – my private interpretation. And when “solo scriptura” is combined with American individualism and allowed to simmer with post-modern “truthiness,” we get a toxic soup of the dystopic self. We then feed this soup to a generation reared as the centers of the universe, then wonder that they are consumed with self. How could they not be?

 …when “solo scriptura” is combined with American individualism and allowed to simmer with post-modern “truthiness,” we get a toxic soup of the dystopic self. We then feed this soup to a generation reared as the centers of the universe, then wonder that they are consumed with self. How could they not be?

The church has consumed “me” like a diet of high-fructose corn syrup. It tasted so good going down, that we did not notice that we grew both addicted to the taste and unable to roll over in our spiritual flabbiness. Worse, the poison has so clogged our synapses that we are unable even to remember what rigorous, healthy spiritual activity was once like.

Pastors have given up expecting meaningful commitment, service, or faithfulness from congregations. I remember suggesting to a pastor of a church of 3500 how transformative it would be to their community if they assembled 350 groups of 10 to meet and read and pray the Bible together in a year. I was stunned when the pastor said, “We have 3500 who attend, but we only have about 50 who are with us.

I am no longer stunned. I have watched how anything that smacks of commitment is sold on its potential to “bless.” This has now extended to our giving. Perry Noble’s church is offering a 90-day money back guarantee on tithing.  Seriously! Giving in order to get. It seems that every week contemporary mega-evangelicalism offers a new narcissistic low-water mark. And just like that, the commodification and monetization of the church is complete.

Where did we think “nothing but you and a Bible” was going to end? Where did we think that reshaping the church after our cultural preferences would lead?

Have you noticed the creeping narcissism? Do you have examples of your own? Do you see a way out?

 

Next Week: Part 2- Conciliarity: The Early Church’s balance between “rule by the man” (A secular idea adopted by Rome) and “rule by the book” (an Islamic idea adopted by Protestants).

 

[1] To be fair, mainliners have had this for years, but it plays out in different ways.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[3] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/januaryweb-only/1-12-52.0.html

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “It’s All About Me: How a distortion of “sola scriptura” turned American evangelicals into junkies of the self

  1. Matt:
    Have you forgotten what the crowd did first to Socrates, then a different crowd a bit later to Jesus, then to the missionary Saul/Paul?
    Confront too much, and you are offered a cup of hemlock or a modern-day, tech enhanced Roman Cross complete with nails and everything!
    Alas, confront too little, and it never improves, always gets a bit worse.
    I’m with you. Only those observe, think, and speak truth are the real change agents.
    Seize the day (and if necessary strangle it! If it is only a weed, just pull it out of the garden. Fr. Martin Luther did, and started a new day. hahahaha.)

    • Raymond, you always make excellent contributions!

      Fr. Luther was certainly a change agent. And, like the rest of us, a mixed bag. Certain woodcuts he made of himself breaking wind in the pope’s face come to mind.

      Maybe if we can keep elevating a mirror to all of us we will all be a little more generous with one another and a little more self-aware.

      The world genuinely needs the church as never before. Which makes it all the more important for us to be the church.

  2. There are always a faithful few who are willing to serve in the Church. They are such a welcomed relief to overworked staff that it becomes easy to over commit these willing volunteers. The church as I know it, is an “engine” of programs and facilities. These take massive commitment to keep running and people are so overwhelmed with their families and jobs and trying to stay above pleasure before vow, that the last thing they want is a obligation that looks a lot like family or job. So the church tries to make it look like “fun” or promises a huge reward. I wish church could become simpler. I wish it could be a place where we gather to worship God and encourage each other. We meet once or twice a week, with calls/texts during the week asking for prayer and emotional support as we bring the kingdom of God to our kids and our workplace.

  3. Hi Matt- at the moment I’m feeling like the millions of versions of Church we now have may not be so different from the early days of trying to figure out the correct version of Church. Back when they had Church in someone’s house, I can only imagine that ‘house church A’ had issues with how ‘house church B’ did things. Each one feeling that they had the more correct version going. They too probably talked about how best to attract Romans, Greeks, younger folks. Do we keep singing just the Psalms or do we go in for something newer? I see the early Church is part of the next installment :). I look forward to reading it.

    • Thanks, Gale.

      The thing the early church did that generated consistency was to have relationship through the bishop’s. Every local elder (presbyter) was under the direct authority of a bishop as the font of authority and interpretation. That gave a strange level of uniformity for an era with much less travel and lack of an internet than we have today. We have uniformity through the commodification of the church (everyone buys Saddleback’s thing and Hillsong’s playlist). That is a different uniformity, isn’t it? It is what gives orthodoxy its uniformity despite the confusing alphabet soup of jurisdictions (which I understand well as an Anglican). 🙂

  4. Pingback: Everyone can’t be right. Why “the Bible alone” didn’t settle disputes in the early church. | the gospel side

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s