.
Principles of Norming: Accountability in teaching
The purpose of an epistemological principle of norming is to provide a "check" if you will, some accountability, to avoid the "I'm just right cuz I say I am" problem.
There are two teachers (persons, congregations, denominations, etc.), teaching different things. What principle or process would best help Christians decide which (if either) is correct?
Is any principle going to be infallible, unable to be misused? No, but some will be more helpful than others.
There are two issues involved:
1. WHO/WHAT will do this evaluation? This is called "arbitration."
2. WHAT will serve as the "rule"? The evaluation will be made on the basis of what? This is called the Rule (in legal issues, the Rule is often the written law, so this is called the 'Rule of Law') or the 'Canon' (literally, the measuring stick, the ruler, the standard, the norm) This is called the "norma normans" (the norm which norms).
Let's look at the two common principles of norming commonly embraced in contemporary Christianity:
Sola Ecclesia: (Church Alone)
The teacher (WHO or WHATEVER is presenting the view - that could be a person, a congregation, a denomination, etc.) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself/itself.
Since the "teacher" here is often a denomination, the principle is often known by "Sola Ecclesia" but the principle is the same if the teacher is an individual person.
In this principle, the teacher self-claims to alone have the authority (often infallibly so) to evaluate himself.
The "rule" for his own self-arbitration includes everything he teaches (which, of course, may well include the very teaching being evaluated, "normed").
Often, the unavoidable result of this principle is self-claimed to be infallible, and thus unaccountable, so that norming is moot.
Sola Scriptura: (Scripture Alone)
The Rule, Canon, Standard for this evaluation is not the teaching itself but God's holy written Word, the Word that virtually all Christians (for 1600-1900 years) have embraced as Authoritative, Apostolic, Infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, and true. And it is written - in exact words we all agree on, words no one can alter to suit himself, not the "phantom" of what the self-same teacher self-claims is something God forgot to include in Scriptures but delivered to them as a secret although they cannot provide any evidence of such.
The issue of arbitration isn't actually addressed in the principle of Sola Scripture. Many that embrace this tool view that the "arbiter" is the church, the Body of Christ, the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" the "communion of saints." It includes all Christians (including those now dead - equally, not lesser or greater - with those now living). Consensus is usually the goal. Self does not arbitrate self. But some that embrace believe that the arbiter is each individual (in that case, embracing the same arbitration factor as Sola Ecclesia).
An Illustration:
ANY illustration is limited and flawed, but an often used one in this discussion is the legal system.
Sola Scriptura example: The Rule of Law prevails, all must be in harmony and concord with the written law of the land. Everyone from the policeman to the judge to the jury are to norm what they decide and do with the law of the land (the 'Rule' is the law - thus this is known as the "Rule of Law"). Of course, that must be adjudicated (arbitrated) and that is done by consensus - perhaps by a jury. Such is not infallible and can be appealed, so the adjudication is not the norma normans but rather the arbitration.
Sola Ecclesia example: The accused (teacher) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself. He alone can determine his guilt or innocense, correctness or falsehood. The norma normans for this evaluation is his own viewpoints or teachings (Tradition) as he himself so defines, interprets and applies. He is accountable only to himself and to God as he himself so determines.
MY evaluation:
Can Sola Ecclesia supply the necessary accountablity and avoid the self-authentication needed to provide the required norming? IMHO, no, it cannot, no matter who or what is the arbiter. It is, by definition, self-authenticating and rejects accountability.
This is abundantly obvious to many because no one seems to condemn the principle more than those who insist on it. They rebuke and ridicule this approach - boldly and strongly - when any other uses it, BUT insist that they themselves (but only they themselves) MUST use it. It's perfect for they themselves to us but absurd any other uses it.
IMHO, if the principle is as bad as they insist it is, then it's bad even when they use it.
Sola Scriptura removes the "self norms self according to self" circle and thus can provide accountability. It CAN do what Sola Ecclesia CANNOT do.
Admittedly: it ain't easy. It takes humility, study, work, prayer, time. I confess, it is so much easier and quicker to just have a Dictator say "I say!" and everyone shuts up, a Dictator who self-claims to be infallible and unaccountable, above Gods Word and people, above the law; a Dictator of amazing ego. Some, however, just aren't sure that's a better system of accountability - and that's what we're talking about - accountability.
The problem for Sola Scriptura, of course, is that humility and patience are RARE commodities among Christians and consensus is much easier said than done. We HAVE done it in nearly all things - I'd guess 90% of Christians agree on 90% of dogmas, but there are things that even now - 2,000 years into things - still lack consensus. These include: The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the Assumption of Mary, the "accident" explaination in the dogma of the Eucharist, the necessity of obedience to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, OSAS, and some other things. These issues remain, a consensus does not exist. Some allow the continuing discussion, prayer and study of these things - but those using Sola Ecclesia insist they themselves have SPOKEN dogmatically and are unaccountable and infallible.
That's MY perspective.
What's yours?
Pax.
- Josiah
.
