WHAT EVANGELICALS AND LIBERALS CAN LEARN FROM THE CHURCH FATHERS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2006 by Hall, Christopher A

Evangelical theologians might well find Irenaeus's advice for adjudicating theological disagreements or conflicts helpful. Irenaeus's proposal is that we think in terms of a "three legged stool of authority: Scripture, Tradition, and the church." All three authorities working congruently serve to protect the Church (and its theologians) from error. Williams comments, "There was an inherent complementarity to the three parts, which was meant to secure the place of Christian truth and offer to each believer the means of locating this truth in space and time."32

If the image of a three-legged stool seems faulty, as it appears to give equal authority to the Bible, tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church, a constitutional analogy may prove more helpful. Indeed, in a recent issue of Christianity Today Roger Olson presents just such an illustration. Olson writes:

An analogy is the United States Constitution and the history of landmark Supreme Court decisions that serve as precedents for later decisions. Judges and lawyers must know the precedents, but the Constitution is the supreme authority. Landmark decisions of earlier courts can be overturned if they are judged to be inconsistent with the Constitution. No competent judge, however, simply tosses out the history of court decisions. They serve as secondary authorities, guides to interpretation. So it is with the Bible and the Great Tradition. Evangelicals should study the tradition, for we are not the first to seek answers to difficult questions and problems in theology. However, we must not elevate the tradition to inviolable, authoritative status.

Thus, we have a genuinely authoritative tradition, but one that can be overturned if necessary. But if the tradition can in certain circumstances be overturned, then we must ask, how are we to judge when those conditions obtain? This question brings us to our third issue: the issue of authenticity.

3. The authenticity of developments within tradition. The crucial question for evaluating the authenticity of a development, it seems to me, is whether any development is a faithful expression of the truth found in Scripture. This truth is the apostolic teaching that the canonical Scriptures normatively embody as uniquely inspired texts. Picture this apostolic teaching as the genetic code or DNA that governs the development of the biblical message. This DNA needs to be faithfully replicated throughout Church history to govern the ongoing proposal and development of theological models. But as the DNA replicates faithfully, the faithful theological results provide a new window into the original structure of the DNA. This is the reason that our interpretation of the Bible is so vastly aided by the Church's rule of faith as a secondary, supportive authority. Further, every faithful development will add to our understanding of the original DNA. Thus, we can have a postbiblical theological model such as the Trinity required by the Church as orthodox, though we never run across the word "Trinity" in the Bible. How so? The genetic code found in the Scripture had already replicated in the rule of faith, and therefore the DNA in the rule of faith could serve as a reliable guide to the original DNA of the Bible. The teaching and practices of the Church guided it in recognizing the faithfulness of the Trinitarian model to the original gospel message.