Describing the Role of Scripture in Faith?

[HowardHuhn]

Here's an interesting question for us to talk about - how can we describe the role of scripture in determining our faith lives?

Some may say 'solo scriptura' or 'only scripture.' John Wesley is said to say he was a 'man of one book'. But the tendency of 'only scripture' proponents is to ignore that scripture itself is a product in part of tradition. It is the tradition of the church that set the canon of scripture. We need reason to understand scripture. Our experience influences how we read it. Our interaction with scripture isn't something that happens in isolation.

Some may say 'prima scriptura' or 'scripture first'. This is the way a lot of Wesleyan scholars refer to scripture and is considered a tenet of the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral' of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Scripture comes first, with the others providing direction and influence in the interpretation of scripture.

But I have a view I'm considering that proposes a slight difference - 'suprema scriptura' (that might not be correct in Latin, but stick with me) This means scripture is supreme. What I mean is there is a difference in primacy and supremacy. Primacy (scripture first), implies an ordinal arrangement of items without ranking of merit. It's like 1,2,3,4,... One comes first, but it isn't necessarily the best or most important. To say that scripture is primary is to say that scripture is the first step, but doesn't imply that it is the most important step. Supremacy implies a cardinal arrangement of items by rank or merit. It's like gold, silver, bronze medals - a ranking of their importance. To say that scripture is supreme is to say that it takes precedence over others. Tradition, reason, and experience are not just other steps to understanding faith, but they are inferior. Where scripture and the others disagree, scripture is superior and is to be followed.

So, I believe that scripture is not just 'prima' (first) but also 'suprema' (supreme).

Thoughts?

[rivey]

I am thankful the GMC is reclaiming the confession that scripture is primary or authoritative.  I think Wesley's guidance to accept the simple or plain meaning of scripture whenever possible and then use other resources to understand more difficult passages is sound. 

I am finding that the conversations I am having around scripture with people within and outside the walls of the church are shifting from where they used to be.  Much of the conversation around scripture used to be whether or not it was true, whether it was acceptable in a scientific age, or if the people in the Hebrew Bible really could have lived that long. Now, I am hearing less conversations about whether the scriptures are true or scientifically acceptable and more conversations about why the story in the Bible matters.  They do not seem troubled by miracles or stories of God acting in the world. They simply want to know why it matters, what impact it could have on their life, or why the story of scripture is different than the other stories they hear in the world today. 

Simple explanations of why you can't really make the Bible "Say whatever you want", showing the reliability of the witness of Jesus life in the Gospel accounts, and how the cannon was determined suffice for most people. The real questions tend to revolve around relevance and why it is "holy scripture" compared to other myths, religions, or stories.