If you are a regular to Precipice Magazine you may have noticed that, over the last year or so, we’ve spent a fair amount of effort addressing the issue of strange miss-applications of the Bible. Most of our scriptural concerns relate to postmodern critiques of modern interpretations- and even more specifically, the modern assumptions propping up these interpretations. Along these very same lines, I recently came across a specific situation that perfectly exemplifies what I (and many others) see as the problem with one particular branch of Evangelical understanding.

Christianity Today recently ran a story on a musical artist named Neal Morse. Morse recently released a new album, titled, Sola Scriptura. The album is the third in a series of concept albums dealing with faith matters. Neal Morse, once a member of a secular band named, Spock’s Beard, embarked on a solo career in 2003 after experiencing a religious conversion.

Now, I have to admit, the second I heard the title of this album there was some rolling of the inner-eyes going on. Why you ask? Well, for someone to hold to a view of sola scriptura (scripture alone) is one thing. But to be so bold as to title an entire album after the concept is another thing altogether. It suggests to me too high a degree of confidence in the sole sufficiency of uninformed, individualized Biblical reading. Add to the mix the fact that Morse, who wrote the album, has only been a follower of Christ for several years, and the problem is compounded.

When I went ahead and read the piece about this artist and this album, my concerns were fully realized. Let me explain.

The album itself is supposedly a tribute to Martin Luther and the early Protestant movement. No problem there I suppose. Offering a historical tip of the hat to the founder of Protestantism is fine. What is the problem however, is the theological trail-blazing Morse does as a result of his rigid, untempered belief in sola scriptura.

A little googling on the topic of Neal Morse led me to a forum where it became evident that he no longer holds to a Trinitarian view. What’s up with that, you ask? After all, isn’t this a settled issue? Don’t hundreds of years of common Christian understanding provide all the clarity we need? Didn’t the Council of Nicea address and resolve this issue once and for all? Well, not according to Neal Morse. And why not? Well, because he doesn’t discern the Trinitarian reality in his own personal reading of scripture.

No problem there, right? After all, isn't Morse just following Luther’s example? Isn’t he just taking seriously the concept of sola scriptura- the idea that the Bible alone serves as our authority on all things divine?

Wrong. The thing is, as has often been pointed out here at Precipice, despite his belief to the contrary, Morse brings all sorts of pre-existing biases to the table- before he even flips open his Bible. Despite his- or anyone else’s- best efforts to the contrary, one just cannot get an objective read on the scriptural material. Why? Because there is NO SUCH THING as an objective reading of scripture. This is not a bad thing. This is not a religious scandal. It’s just a fact. A fact that doesn’t pose a problem- provided we acknowledge it and tread accordingly- hopefully a little more knowingly, and certainly a little more humbly.

Interestingly, the Morse example provides a perfect demonstration of subjectivity in play. When asked for more detail behind his non-Trinitarian view, Morse admitted that he saw a History Channel program about the Council of Nicea (where the theology of the Trinity was resolved) and concluded that the event was not “God-inspired”. So there you have it. Whether he admits it or not, Morse’s view is no longer arrived at via sola scriptura. It is determined by his reading of scripture- with a dash of History Channel editorializing thrown in for good measure.

And of course, these factors are just the beginning of Morse’s interpretive grid. A whole host of issues undoubtedly affect his reading of the Bible. These issues include (but are certainly not limited to): his own cultural heritage, his personality, his familial background, his ecclesial affiliation, his societal paradigm, etc.

If you’re like me, perhaps you’ve already raised an eyebrow to the idea that Morse’s view of the Council of Nicea was solely informed by one History Channel broadcast. For a Christian- joining with a great cloud of witnesses stretching back to the time of Christ- to look exclusively to the History Channel, rather than also to the annals of Church history (among other sources), to learn more about the Nicean meeting, is a little- shall we say, perplexing?

And then again, maybe its not. Because this only points to a larger problem related to the sola scriptura approach. People led to believe in sola scriptura tend to develop a rather exaggerated sense of their own abilities. And this flies in the face of the fact that- from the time of Christ on- there has existed this sense that we cannot- and should not- rely on ourselves alone to grow in godliness. This is especially the case as new believers. In this tender season we would do well to walk in the shadow of those who have more fully immersed themselves in the Way of Jesus.

And yet when people are told that “all you need is the Bible”, the implicit teaching is that their baby-Christian understanding is just not an issue. And this simply IS NOT TRUE. Despite all modernistic, dualistic assumptions to the contrary, walking with God over a longer, dedicated period of time, makes us better interpreters of the Bible. Why? Well, because by then we have grown the hooks to hang various theological perspectives on. Again, despite modernistic assumptions to the contrary, seminary is not the believer’s primary model of preparation. Preparation is a process, a journey- not a fixed location. And that journey is made walking alongside more mature brothers and sisters, following in the footsteps of the Jesus who bore a cross.

And beyond the issue of Christian maturity is the issue of nuanced Biblical understanding. Neal Morse- and countless millions like him- read their Bible from cover to cover like a single work containing no variations in genre. But in so doing they deny reality. They may think they are holding the Bible in high regard by viewing it this way. But is making the Bible something it is not, equivalent to holding it in high regard? I think not. While a canonical understanding leads us to see the mysterious threads that bind the various works together, this does not prevent us from acknowledging their colorful, multi-dimensional differences as well. Put another way, while the Bible may be more than a collection of historical narratives, poems, and letters from a variety of cultural contexts operating under differing worldview assumptions, it is certainly not less than this.

There is more that could be said on this issue. After all, it’s a complex one- a web with threads that lead in numerous directions. One thread details how our view of the Bible- as the inspired, authoritative word of God- is inextricably connected to the idea that the Church is the inspired vessel authorized to draw that conclusion. In other words, only a highly truncated view of history can lead one to the kind of sola scriptura perspective endorsed by people such as Neal Morse.

But the problem is really not with Neal Morse. He’s a young, growing believer. He’s experiencing the growing pains that are just part of the process. No problem there. The problem lies with the concepts he has been taught to believe in.

So what, ultimately, am I saying then? Am I suggesting we cannot trust the Bible to reveal the will of God and the history of God and His people? No. I do believe that is what the Bible is and was divinely designed to do. What I am saying however, is that we need to abandon this modern fallacy that human beings, via reason, can access the Bible’s teachings perfectly.

Secondly, I believe we Protestants need to acknowledge that a truly historical view tells us that the authority of scripture was (and therefore is) always necessarily connected to the authority of the Church- corruption, blemishes and all.

I realize that this does not all fit perfectly together like a modern puzzle. But that’s not as result of a deficiency with the Bible, or with the Church, but in the ideals of the Enlightenment Project. All authority ultimately belongs to God- who provides revelation via the Bible (among other forms), filtered through a mysterious, invisible, Apostolic stream that runs through the Body of Christ- even despite its apparent fragmentation. Again, this might be less linear and absolute than we’ve been taught to expect. But the problem there lies with our expectations- and their modern origins, rather than with the vessels given to us by God.

Not only do I believe the perspective I am prescribing would better honor the fullness of our and God’s collective history, but I also believe it would help to prevent the Neal Morse’s of the world from thinking they can re-write God’s story for Creation, simply because of what their very subjective, very personally-colored, very limited reading of scripture tells them.