A Protestant Perspective on MOJ & the Bible

My new colleague, Joel Nichols, had this response to Brian McCall's comments:

I’ve read with interest a couple of the MOJ posts on scripture and found them interesting – since (as a Protestant brought up in an “evangelical” tradition, for lack of better terminology) I have found it curious that the MOJ project so rarely refers to the Bible in its discussions.

While the other extreme to Brian McCall’s post would be the severe “proof-texting” sometimes practiced by some Christians, I would surely hope (and indeed believe) that there is something in between.  I’m particularly troubled by Brian statement below that “Protestants only having one aspect of Revelation are obviously left starting with all they have.”  This is a pretty extreme over-simplification of Protestant positions, as there are surely gradiants in between (A) having “only” Scripture and (B) Brian’s description of having “Scripture and Tradition” but then only approaching Scripture after first consulting Tradition. 

Just by short examples, at seminary we often discussed John Wesley’s so-called “Methodist quadrilateral” of sources, which advances (1) Scripture; (2) tradition; (3) reason; and (4) experience (as informed by the Holy Spirit).  Or, the Episcopal Church regularly talks about (1) Scripture; (2) Tradition; and (3) Reason as sources of authority.  There is some interesting thinking and writing within Protestantism (including evangelicalism) right now regarding how much weight to give to the various sources of authority, and I know of individual churches having classes on exactly this question.  Personally, to my traditionally evangelical mind, it still seems imperative to start with Scripture – although I would be very quick to add caveats about “proper” interpretation and the use of other sources.  (One could argue this just a variant of legal “originalism,” I suspect.)  While part of the difference between Protestants and Catholics about sources likely stems, I suspect, from the still-strong difference in some Protestant and Catholic thought regarding the propriety of individual interpretation versus a more hierarchical interpretation, we shouldn’t be too quick to mis-characterize the Protestant position here either.  The best Protestant sources (to my mind, at least) have never advocated pure individual interpretation outside the boundaries of Christian tradition – but have rather insisted that individual interpretation can/should only take place in the context of community (including both current and past community). 

While I would not at all condone the proof-texting that has been done in various circles in the past but instead insist that we should have a more robust understanding of Scripture, including its themes and overall tenor more than just singular passages, neither does it seem the right starting point to work “backwards,” if you will, by beginning with tradition and only later going to scripture.  [Interesting also to my mind is that underneath such a discussion about sources lie serious issues about revelation, authority, human nature and capabilities, polity, and other deep matters, even though this seems on the surface only an issue of sources.]