In the centuries before Bibles could be mass produced, the Church had much control over where and when the Bible was read. Toward the end of the Middle Ages, groups like the Waldensians were promoting the use and interpretation of Scripture by the laity.
Still, the scarcity of copies of the Bible made generalized study almost impossible. It’s said that two monks working fulltime would take four years to produce a copy of the Bible; these copies were so valuable that they were chained to the pulpits in churches to keep them from being stolen.
It was only natural that individuals found themselves highly influenced by official church interpretations of the Scripture and specific congregations remained highly dependent on the church hierarchy. This was beginning to change before Gutenberg’s printing press, but his invention greatly accelerated the transformation.
It’s not coincidence that the Reformation didn’t take place until after the invention of the moveable type press.
If you ever get a chance, picik up a copy of Alister McGrath, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First,” New York: Harper Collins, 2007. The book is a history of Protestant Christianity and McGrath argues that that one of the greatest blessings (having scripture in the hands of all laity) was also one of the most dangerous developments in Christian history. The dangerous aspect is namely because of the many different denominations that have emerged who all claim to interpret scripture correctly while we all know that not all can be legitimately correct.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Tim,
i was going to point out something, but Rex beat me to it. i think this private interpretation is something we all value deeply (and i’m by no means suggesting that i think we ought to give it up). But historically, what has it accomplished in terms of unity? Even to this day, the authoritarian-interpretation churches remain by and large far, far more unified in comparison to the private-interpretation-emphasis churches. While the first century church didn’t have a pope, they did have the apostles and inspired teachers living with them.
Sometimes it feels like we’re forced to use a particular round dial. “Unity” is what you get when you turn the dial all the way in one direction, and “Truth” is what you get when you turn it the other way. We could easily have more “Unity” if we were willing to turn down the amount and degree of distinctive beliefs we hold (“Truth”). We could easily adopt more and more of what we perceive to be needed distinctive beliefs, but people will likely start jumping ship and so we lose “Unity.” Many churches try to find somewhere in the mid range to set the dial as best as their conscience allows.
But bottom line, how do we get away from the dichotomy of the dial and make it work without such institutional-structures (living apostles or even a centralized authority structure) to depend on?
–Guy
There is a “Canonical Theism” for which Dr. Mark E. Powell (teaches Theology at Harding Graduate School of Religion) is a part of which is trying to address the Protestant problem of scripture and authority. It is being led by William J. Abraham who both Powell and Frederick Aquino studied under at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Abraham wrote a book titled “Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism,” New York: Oxford Press, 1998; which is NOT a read for the faint at heart (I have only read part of it) that address some of what the Canonical Theism project (as I understand) it about. He also edited a book titled “Canonical Theism: A Proposal for Theology and the Church” which both Powell and Aquino contributed chapters in.
Grace and peace,
Rex
First of all I firmly believe in private interpretation. Blood and martyrs have given us the ability if we choose to read the bible without someone telling us what is the right interpretation. Yes denominationalism has driven protestantism to various splinter groups. This will continue as evangelicals polarize this country. Any one with a differing viewpoint is considered wrong in many church camps. I refuse to accept hook line and sinker canned religiosity. Yes I am an independant thinker and will continue to interpret thru my own eyes, what I read.
Heavenbound,
There’s nothing wrong with thinking for yourself and not accepting something just because someone esle says its so but “private interpretation”…that’s a product of Western enlightment not biblical or historical Christianity.
Grace and peace,
Rex