A new Reformation?

In an article written in our denominational magazine called the Banner, a certain author questioned the doctrines of Original Sin and the Atonement based on the current Scientific Theory of Evolution. Now I myself am open to discussion and debate surrounding both of these spheres of influence: theology and science. I have friends with an Eastern Orthodox leaning that would question both the doctrine of Original Sin and the traditionally Reformed view of the Atonement of Christ. Also I enjoy considering how Scientific theory can be understood, especially in light of Scriptural revelation. I don’t mind healthy debates around these issues at all.

But my concern is with the assumptions behind what the basis for these arguments are. What authority are we appealing to? My last two blog entries had to do with hearing God’s voice and how Christ’s authority is exerted on the earth. My concern with the above mentioned article was that its appeal was made, within the context of a church magazine, on the basis of the authority of Science over and above the authority of Scripture, or at least equal to it.

As I said in the beginning I believe that God’s creation is one of the books He gives us to read in order to understand Him and all things. However, Scriptural revelation is a special revelation and must be over and above general revelation, and then, in both cases, we must deal with our interpretation of that revelation.

Let me explain: if general revelation is allowed to have equal authority (or even greater authority) than special revelation (Scripture) within the context of the church, then we have nothing less than a new reformation on our hands.

A reformation is always about authority. The reformers tried to challenge the Roman Catholic church and were excommunicated from it largely on the basis that Christ’s authority on earth was primarily exerted through Scripture and not the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. They wanted that Church to have a higher authority that it was accountable to because they believed it had left the truth of the Gospel of Grace.

Now there is a significant group within some Reformed churches suggesting that Christ’s authority on earth is exerted as much or even more through Scientific Theory and Social Theory as Scripture itself. One of our denomination’s confessions, the Belgic Confession, beautifully states: “We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes `as a most elegant book… Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His Holy and divine Word…” which in this case refers to the written Word. Notice that it says, “more clearly and fully known”, putting special revlation over and above general.

The reason that our denomination decided that folks who believed women should be elders could clasp hands in fellowship and communion with those who did not was that both sides based their convictions on the authority of Scripture. Here we were still solidly Protestant among the traditions of the wider Church. But now within our denomination there is an appeal to Science and Social theories but almost not at all to Scripture to justify certain practices within the Church. I do not suggest those theories are irrelevant, but I do suggest they must bow to the authority of Christ through Scripture.

The defining characteristic of Reformed and Protestant churches is not how we do baptism, philosophies such as Kyperanism or any other more disputable matter within the larger Body of Christ, but it is our view on the authority of Scripture that makes us Reformed in our identity, flavor and gift to the rest of the Body of Christ. (In our case that includes our confessions as a common interpretation of Scripture.)

But now we are faced with a new reformation within our fellowship and what we decide concerning it will define or redefine us. If others wish to start a new movement, let them do so. But as for me and my house, we will not bow our knee to the authority of Scientific and Social Theory over and above Scripture.

(Next time I’ll exlore why this might not be as much of a “new” reformation as I make it sound)