It should be clear to the average Christian that Protestantism has long been suffering from a wildfire of denominational division. Flames emerge from every argument about whose reading of Scripture is right, and embers still smolder at the question of what a Christian is finally to believe. But what sparked the fire? What fueled the flame?
Many modern scholars—theologians, sociologists, and historians alike—hold the Reformation largely responsible. For with a list of theses nailed to the door of a Wittenberg church, the interpretive harmony of the Roman Catholic Church was allegedly exchanged for the interpretive anarchy of each individual’s right to read Scripture for themselves. But Kevin Vanhoozer doesn’t think this is the case. In Biblical Authority after Babel, he presents a tightly woven argument for both, defending the Reformation against charges of splintered factionalization and for recovering Protestantism as a source of interpretive and ecclesial unity. Vanhoozer’s efforts revolve around a retrieval of the five Reformation solas, along with the priesthood of all believers in an attempt to solve both the problem of interpretive anarchy and the problem of interpretive authority. But before we grapple with his attempt at a solution, we should come to terms with the dire circumstances to which he is responding.
Vanhoozer identifies secularization, skepticism, and schism as three of the most potent charges recently laid at the feet of the Reformation. First, the Reformation allegedly begat secularization by shifting the locus of worldview formation from the church to the individual—leaving the door open for people to decide to build their worldview upon reason instead of upon religion. Second, the Reformation allegedly begat skepticism by rejecting the reliable paradigm of a fundamental criterion for truth and falsity for the vulnerable paradigm of arbitrary individual conviction. Third, the Reformation allegedly begat schism by sourcing its identity in opposition, which led to a proclivity to undergo division. All of these coalesce into the present Protestant dilemma. Protestants now find themselves in an interpretive crisis, where biblical meaning differs from person to person. They are in a legitimation crisis, where a reliable interpretive criterion is nowhere to be found. And they are in a community crisis, where their branch of Christianity seems more accurately depicted by its division than by its unity.
How does Vanhoozer plan for a recovery from this seemingly insurmountable quandary? He argues that a solution can be found in the notion of “mere Protestant Christianity,” which he suggests offers theological unity in ecclesial diversity. He does this by treating the five solas as theological presuppositions that provide a common theological foundation, a common interpretational method, and a common ecclesial goal. Vanhoozer describes this as the ontology, economy, and teleology of interpretive authority—supported by the five solas, guided by the priesthood of all believers, and aiming at catholicity.
From this foundation, Vanhoozer weaves together many complex but persuasive arguments organized under each sola and ultimately encapsulated in twenty theses around which Protestants might gather in unanimous agreement. He does this by retrieving each of the five solas with a view to looking back creatively while moving forward faithfully. Sola gratia (grace alone) emphasizes that God’s grace in his triune economy of communicative action precedes and reorients individual human effort in interpretation. Sola fide (faith alone) highlights the trustworthiness of God’s speech in Scripture, the rationality of trusting others, and the need to attend to the interpretations of others for a thorough knowledge of Christian thought and life. Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) provides a clear pattern of interpretive authority, beginning with God and his communicative action in Scripture and flowing into the valuable insights of church tradition throughout history. Solus Christus (in Christ alone) unites believers in a Christ-formed royal priesthood that is able to make authoritative interpretive judgments in each local church in order to preserve the integrity of the gospel. Sola Deo gloria (for the glory of God alone) gathers believers together at the local and trans-local levels to collectively pursue God’s purposes, always dedicated to mutually correcting conversation and accountability.
It is through this notion of mere Protestant Christianity that Vanhoozer aims to avoid the bewilderment of Babel by essentially assuming the posture of Pentecost. The goal is not division but a unity forged out of diversity in which different voices are sources of perspectival enrichment instead of fundamental separation. The five solas taken together with the priesthood of all believers redirect interpretive anarchy and authority to God’s triune economy of the gospel and the believer’s place in that economy as part of a unified community. As a result, secularization should fade with the implementation of grace, skepticism should fade with the establishment of trust, and schism should fade with the pursuit of unity.
Now while Vanhoozer is to be commended for his ambitious task of unifying those who might seem inherently divided, I do have my concerns. I found myself asking if Vanhoozer wants to solve real, practical issues of division, then why didn’t he simply articulate his proposal by responding to a handful of these divisive issues? Because of this, his work occasionally felt something like reading a book aimed at guarding one’s faith against doubts in which the author only further articulates faith but never interacts with any real doubts. I wondered why Vanhoozer didn’t structure his project around particular issues, such as divisions over the Lord’s Supper, different understandings of the person of Christ, or how one is saved. By this, he could have demonstrated how his proposal would set Protestants on an attainable trajectory of unitive interpretive plurality. After all, it’s one thing to equip a group for success, and another to show them how to succeed.
Nevertheless, even with these concerns in mind, Vanhoozer’s work is impressive. He offers a way for Protestants to balance conviction with humility, decidedness with openness, and unity with plurality. At its best, his proposal enthralls one with a vision so eloquently articulated yet so simply presented that one really begins to believe it might just be able to cast a reconciling flood upon the fire of our discord.
John Raines is a Master of Arts in theology student at Fuller Theological Seminary, cohost of the podcast Reconstruct, and blogs at Profitable Discourse. He lives with his wife in Seattle, Washington.
