Thread by @rhyneputman

I will admit I haven’t spent much time reading the primary sources of CRT, so I will gladly withold judgment for the moment on its value as tool or its evil as an ideology.

I will go out on a limb and say the vast majority of Baptists on the internet who are critiquing it haven’t read much of it either. They are following the lead of people they trust, which I can appreciate.

But this debate, like others in counseling, apologetics, etc., usually comes down to a debate over the meaning of ‘sola scriptura.’

I, like most evangelicals, would like to think myself an advocate of ‘sola scriptura.’ Scripture alone is the standard by which Christian belief and practice is measured.

I have written extensively about the sufficiency of Scripture and its relationship to other sources (tradition, reason, experience, etc.), and I have other things I want to write on the matter in relationship to ecclesiology, method, and the like.

Some seem to suppose that when the Reformers said ‘sola scriptura,’ they ruled out any and all use of tradition—and by extension, any form of reasoning not explicitly detailed in Scripture.

This would be the position some have labeled ‘solo scriptura’ or ‘nuda scriptura’ (naked or bare Scripture).

Of course, a closer examination of the Reformers makes it plain that they did not oppose Tradition in and of itself, but a particular version of Tradition that sees it as an equal authority to Scripture.

For the majority of church history, Tradition was seen as the interpretation of Scripture. Good tradition was a faithful interpretation of Scripture.

Only in late medieval theology did it take a dangerously different shape: Tradition was not seen as the interpretation of revelation but seen as revelation itself.

So, ‘sola scriptura’ as originally put forward by the Reformers was not a criticism of tradition per se, but one of an unhealthy version of tradition that elevated it to or above Scripture.

The Reformers certainly didn’t practice ‘nuda scriptura.’ And to be fair, most in the present debate don’t either—at least with respect to tradition.

It’s clear that the 1689 crowd has a clear appreciation for at least one stream of tradition.

However, I think we can gravitate toward ‘nuda scriptura’ with respect to a number of other things, practicing uncritical and uncharitable biblicism that rejects engagement with non-biblical resources.

In the counseling debate, this can mean rejecting mental health categories that come from secular psychology. I understand this impulse, especially given the sexual ideologies that drive so much of it today.

However, just because I disagree with the APA or ‘gender’ and ‘sexual orientation,’ doesn’t mean I cannot agree on certain diagnoses like ADD, depression, etc.

As I understand it, ‘sola scriptura’ is NOT a denial of the value of other sources for Christian knowledge (especially regarding things related to the world created by God). It is a statement that all those other sources must be measured by the only norm, which is Scripture.

Again, Scripture is the supreme source of knowledge and the only norm by which other sources are read. It alone is inerrant and infallible.

That being said, Scripture clearly does not explicitly address every issue we wrestle with today. It offers principles we may use to address those issues, but it was written to specific issues Israel or the Church needed then.

The naive biblicism becomes evident in criticisms directed at Matt Chandler for bringing in experts who can help us battle sex abuse because he is allegedly appealing to another standard besides Scripture.

The Bible has a lot to say about sexual sin. But its authorship does not directly address screening and confronting registered sexual offenders.

For this reason, this sola scriptura-affirming pastor has made great use of resources like Ministry Safe, which provides sound legal and practical advice for screening and training volunteers.

It takes wisdom and experience, which some of these outside experts may offer, to know how to screen potential offenders and know how they groom their victims.

To give ear to this wisdom and experience need not challenge our fundamental assumptions about biblical authority. So long as it does not directly contradict Scripture or the biblical worldview, we should receive it as potentially helpful information.

The trickier question has to do with the philosophical ‘tools’ we use to assess theological and cultural issues.

It is true tools can have ideologically problematic backgrounds. But the genetic fallacy practiced by many forces us to assume everyone who uses the tools buys into the worldview of their originators.

For example, I am a big proponent of using speech-act theory to describe authorial intent in hermeneutics. It is just a plain way of talking about human language.

It says that every time a person speaks with his words, he is doing something. There are words spoken or written (locutionary acts), intentions (illocutionary acts), and effects on the hearer (perlocutionary acts).

I am well aware non-Christian philosophers developed and first used it. J. L. Austin, and later, John Searle, were not exactly devoted to biblical authority.

But just because I think they are wrong in other places in their worldview doesn’t mean I think they are wrong about this basic philosophical description of language.

We do the same thing any time we talk about propositional statements, which were spelled out for us by a pagan philosopher named Aristotle.

We don’t presume that every time we talk about propositional truth that we are buying into Aristotle’s metaphysics or religious views.

We don’t presume any talk of epistemology means one has to embrace Platonism.

By extension, I am willing to grant patience and charity to Christian brothers who use certain tools without necessarily borrowing all the ideology that comes with them.

‘Sola scriptura’ does not mean ideas found outside of Scripture cannot be helpful, but it means these ideas must be analyzed and held to the standard of Scripture.

If there are things destructive or unhelpful in the way the tools are being utilized, then they should be challenged or questioned.

From my non-researched perspective, I can see merits of the arguments on both sides of the CRT debate.

Again, without having read primary sources, I will refrain making an epistemic judgment for the time being.

But I do want to be charitable and not automatically presume the worst of those who share a common confession with me. That cuts both ways here.

I cannot presume that a person who disagrees with me on a topic sees or holds the same inferences I draw from that idea.

For example, it would be a straw man and very uncharitable for me to say that anyone who believes Jesus died for all is a universalist.

But this is the same kind of thinking at work in many of these debates.

We suppose our opponents who hold a different view see the same logical conclusions we infer and embrace them dogmatically. That is a problem.

Just because a brother disagrees with us about the value of secular psychology does not mean he embraces the sexual ideologies of the left.

Just because a brother disagrees with us about science doesn’t mean he embraces the materialism of atheist scientists.

Just because someone has a different view on immigration law doesn’t mean they agree with the left on abortion.

And so on and so on.

By what standard do we make these distinctions? The answer is and always should be Scripture.

I am willing to give anyone who believes and proclaims biblical authority and a biblical gospel the initial benefit of the doubt when entering into these conversations.

It just seems like a biblical thing to do.