well just recently I finished a book I
wanted to read for a long time it's dr.
Alister McGrath book called
Christianity's dangerous idea and it's a
very interesting very compellingly
written history of the Protestant
movement and also a study of some
central Protestant ideas McGrath is a
professor at Oxford and one of the most
prolific authors in the Protestant scene
today he rehearses a number of major
themes so justification by grace through
faith in luther predestination in calvin
the primacy of the Word of God in most
Protestant churches but the issue that
intrigued me the most and the one that
McGrath returns to almost obsessively
throughout the book is the issue of
authority who finally has the authority
to interpret the Word of God the problem
arose a course from Luther's sense of
the priesthood of all believers Luther
said that the Word of God does not
belong to an ecclesiastical elite but
rather every baptized person has the
right to read the Bible according to his
or her lights Luther felt that the plain
sense of the Bible would be obvious to
to everybody so he he gave it to the
whole church to read McGrath is honest
enough to admit that even within
Luther's lifetime things approved a lot
more complicated there were wild
disagreements about church about church
state about the Eucharist about
sacraments about all sorts of things and
even within Luther's lifetime major of
prostitutions begin to emerge so it's
obvious the plain sense was not quite so
plain there was a lot of disagreement
that emerged what I find it also
intriguing was that McGrath admits all
this any furthermore sees that it's a
problem in light of Jesus great prayer
that all his disciples all his followers
might be one
he knows this divisive nough Sam
what he does though is he says we don't
need and we can't have some absolute
authority what we have to rely on is a
gradual
consensus that builds up among the
teachers and preachers and congregations
within the Protestant movement and here
he sees at what many people are seeing
the link between a Protestant
sensibility and a Democratic sensibility
so we to say politically there's no one
absolute authority but we gradually
build up a political consensus okay
as I read that argument followed it even
admired it I have to confess that my
Catholic soul balked somehow it seems to
me we do need a voice finally that can
determine for us the truth of things
when there is this tremendous
disagreement if I might press that
political analogy that McGrath uses who
would ever think that thirty thousand
political parties in one Parliament
would be a functional system but there
are thirty thousand at least Protestant
denominations around the world how could
that possibly be the ground for a
effective consensus in light of all that
I come back to one of my great
theological heroes John Henry Newman who
of course had begun life as a an
Anglican and then became Catholic here's
one of the main reasons Newman became a
Catholic like McGrath he acknowledged
this lively conversation among the
theologians among the preachers he
acknowledged the development of doctrine
he saw all that but that he said at the
end of the day there has to be a living
voice that can determine the truth of
things when the church is divided about
essential matters what occurs to me is
that the best analogy for Newman's idea
would be the analogy of an umpire or
referee anyone that plays a game
seriously knows that you like the umpire
even though we boo the umpire when they
come out we we like the umpire or the
referee if we're serious about the game
because without an umpire without a
living voice or in the case of the
referee his shrill whistle without that
the game will soon devolve into
bickering if you love the game and you
want it to go on you reverence the fact
that there is a voice a clear voice
a living voice that can determine fair
or foul right or wrong ball or strike I
think that's the best analogy now for
the authority of the church as Newman
saw not oppressive not domineering but a
kind of refereeing authority that allows
the conversation to move forward in a
more creative way it seems to me as I
read through my grass book and admire it
very much and appreciated it that that
is the great question
it was the great question in the
sixteenth century and it remains to this
day I think in the protestant catholic
dialogue v question newman when he was
still an angle getting thought that the
father's the consensus among the church
fathers so Chrysostom and Jerome and
Augusta and the great early figures
would suffice as an authoritative voice
but what struck him was the fathers whom
he deeply admired but they're dead
they're not a living voice not a voice
that can directly address the issues of
the day we can sort through their works
and do the best we can to figure out how
to move forward today but someone who's
on the scene who's hearing what's going
on and who's living voice can set the
tone Newman saw that is indispensable
now I should say there's a place where
the referee and umpire analogy breaks
down because indeed umpires and referees
can be wrong you know we can say look at
that replay clearly that was a bad call
we also got to bring in what Newman and
the whole Catholic tradition sees which
is a guarantee of the Holy Spirit Newman
said if God saw fit to reveal saving
truth to the church he would also see
fit to give that church an authoritative
voice that could interpret it in a
definitive way otherwise what's the
value of it so gods revealed saving
truth but there's such disagreement
about it it doesn't have an effective
power so we would say that there's a
guarantee of the Holy Spirit for example
that when the Pope and the bishops
together speak in a magisterial way that
they'll be preserved from error so
that's where the umpire and referee
analogy breaks down there's also the
guidance of the Holy Spirit see where
the the Protestant view is that the Holy
Spirit would dwell within each
individual so each individual could read
the book according to
her lights but again the problem is
there's such radical and rampant
disagreement how can it be the case if
there's such dramatic disagreement
across the board through the official
structures and channels of the church
we'd hold that this interpretive
authority comes but again keep in mind a
referee is not playing the game the
referee isn't the whole game a mistake
you can make is to become to referee
focus the game is about to play it's
about the team it's about shooting the
basket it's about playing good defense
the referee intervenes from time to time
and Newman saw that as the appropriate
role of the church's authority not to be
brooding over the conversation of the
church's life but to be intervening when
it had to when the play had become
disruptive so I think a good liberal
critique might be you can over referee
the game there can be too much
intervention by the church's authority
it ought to back off intervening only
when it has to and Newman saw that very
clearly in the 19th
you
in his book Christianity's dangerous
idea in his book Christianity's
dangerous idea