1 Introduction
Sola scriptura functions as a theological claim in many Christian faith communities, and points to scripture as the primary authority for the community. This claim is sometimes but not always accompanied by the limiting clause, “in matters of faith and practice.” Moreover, sola scriptura may also function as implicit authority claim within a faith community that does not use the phrase itself; this is typical of many evangelical churches that frequently deny (at least formally) any other form of authority besides scripture.
The debate about this phrase and the extent of its authority claim is a substantial issue in systematic theology, for instance in theologies of ministry where clerical authority and scriptural authority are carefully balanced. However, the phrase sola scriptura was coined in a particular social and religious context, where it served to distinguish one faith tradition from other faith traditions.1 Thus, as with any good theology, it originated in particular faith practices of a particular era and location. This highlights that authority claims are not primarily abstract ideas or important theological issues but that they function to structure social realities in theologically relevant ways. In particular, the authority claim of sola scriptura provided theological legitimacy to particular social realities that had been structured differently by other forces and communities. This highlights that an authority claim like sola scriptura is not only and perhaps not even primarily an issue in systematic and historical theology, but has much broader relevance.
Therefore, a practical theological approach commends itself as a promising avenue of investigation. The aim of the present article is to offer a practical theological analysis of the social dynamics within which the phrase sola scriptura might function as exclusive authority claim of certain faith communities. The article focuses not on historical analysis, but on a contemporary and fictitious case study in order to illustrate the complexities of the question at hand.
The practical theological analytical model of Helen Cameron et al., which we will introduce in the first part of this article, will highlight various aspects of the case study. The model will demonstrate different layers of normativity that play a part in the case study. In the second part we will introduce social identity theory to further our understanding of the social dynamics of these claims. Finally, we position our understanding of the case study and the analytical models within the framework of social constructionism. The goal of introducing these models and theories is to demonstrate the theological and social complexity of claims about scripture as exclusive authority in faith communities today.
2 The Case: Cathy en Peter
Somewhere in the Netherlands a faith community meets every Sunday: the evangelical church The Bridge.2 According to their website, this church places itself deliberately in the broader Evangelical tradition, emphasizing the values of being missional, progressive, and welcoming to all. The members of the church experience their community as warm and compassionate, although they are divided over a couple of ethical issues. The church has one pastor, four elders (all men), and a leadership team of twelve men and women, including the pastor and the elders. The pastor says he preaches biblically and relevant for contemporary living. The worship service blends a mixture of old and new elements and songs, and is led by various men and women, and sometimes by some youth.
Recently the topic of divorce and cohabitation has been hotly debated. This was occasioned by a couple, Cathy and Peter, who want to become members of the community. Both Cathy and Peter have been married before. Cathy divorced her first husband because he abused her psychologically. Peter divorced his first wife because, as he says, “our marriage didn’t work anymore.” About half a year ago Cathy and Peter got to know each other. They want to stay together faithfully, yet without marrying; at least they don’t want to marry in the near future. “We have both gone through too much pain to marry again,” they say. The couple has come to The Bridge for several months now. People are friendly and it seems the couple has quickly become part of the community. A few weeks ago they expressed their interest to participate more actively in the life of the community. Cathy would like to work with the older youth as well as to lead worship services. Peter would like to be on the preaching rota. While the community is happy with Cathy and Peter’s attendance, many members are opposed to Cathy and Peter taking on these tasks. Some of them disapprove of Peter’s divorce and consider their relationship unbiblical. Moreover, the fact that Cathy and Peter want to cohabit without marriage is unacceptable for many church members.
3 Four Voices: A Practical-Theological Analytical Model
Helen Cameron et al. have proposed a model to analyze cases from different points of view. Every situation involves at least four ‘voices’: the voices of normative, formal, espoused, and operant theology.3 The strength of this model is its heuristic value: it distinguishes various layers or voices at play in the praxis at hand. The model distinguishes between what those involved in the situation say they do (espoused theology), and what in fact they do (operant theology). Cameron et al. define the former as “the theology embedded within a group’s articulation of its beliefs” and the latter as “the theology embedded within the actual practices of a group.”4 At these levels, the tension evident in the case comes to the surface. Also, certain theologians may be consulted about what should be done (formal theology), while normative documents of the tradition (scripture, creeds, liturgies, statements of faith, conferences, etc.) play in the background and may be drawn upon (normative or traditional theology).5 These four voices mutually influence each other. The voices are distinct, yet they overlap and they are interrelated. This implies that the formal voice and the voice of the tradition not only influence espoused and operant theology, but the latter two question and influence the former voices as well. Moreover, each of the voices influences and is influenced by each of the three other voices. This model allows us to analyze the social and theological complexity of sola scriptura as exclusive authority claim.
The model of the four voices helps to understand the complexity of concrete situations by analyzing four important dimensions that are discernible in any form of praxis. For instance, the model can be used to analyze how particular norms and values are embedded in a concrete situation along each of its four dimensions. This helps to see the various layers of normativity in that situation. This will become clear as we analyze the case of Cathy and Peter below. It will become clear that norms are embedded in the situation at various levels, which shows that the principle of sola scriptura—in the sense of scripture as the only norm—functions in a way that is far more complex than a systematic theological analysis might suggest.
When we look at the case of Cathy and Peter and their place in The Bridge at face value everything seems to be fine. The community is happy to welcome new members, and Cathy and Peter seem to have found a spiritual home in a loving community. However, when the new couple expresses their desire to help out with some of the tasks in the life of this community, tensions that have been implicit so far rise to the surface, generating dialogue, sympathy and resistance. What role do the four voices have in this situation, and what is the place of scripture in these voices?
Let us first look at what the members of The Bridge think about this situation: the voice of espoused theology. The community emphasizes its welcome to everyone, its progressive character and its missional outlook. The pastor says he preaches biblically and relevant to today’s society. The community says to be happy with Cathy and Peter. When the couple wants to take up new roles, some in the community start to emphasize other norms and values. For them Peter’s divorce (or even Cathy’s) is unacceptable. Their relationship is unbiblical, they claim, as is their practice of cohabitation. Others in the community see no problem in Cathy and Peter’s further involvement in the life of the community. They think the divorces are to be regretted, but these should not stop Cathy and Peter from moving on in life. These people emphasize that God is a God of second chances. Furthermore, this group emphasizes the welcoming and inclusive character of The Bridge. Both groups point to scripture and argue from scripture for their position. For both groups scripture is the final authority: norms should be based on scripture.
The conflict in the community does not only make it possible to see what different members say, but also what is actually happening in The Bridge: the voice of operant theology. The situation makes clear that members of The Bridge hold to different positions about divorce and cohabitation. There is no uniform theology at this point of the debate; we may speak of different theologies. Tensions rise between the value of being inclusive and ethical norms about relationships; between being contemporary church and upholding the traditional norms of marriage. For those who do not endorse Cathy and Peter’s relationship, the values of welcoming and inclusivity are secondary to the values and norms around marriage and divorce. For others, the values of welcoming and inclusivity deserve priority, while some may not even share the traditional marriage values. The issue is hotly debated, various groups claiming biblical authority for their position. The place of scripture is not necessarily discussed in the community, but the interpretation thereof is.
In order to resolve the issue, the community members may turn to books, lectures, internet sites, and seek advice from theologians. In other words, they turn explicitly to the voice of formal theology. The question is to which books and theologians they will turn. If the voice of operant theology betrayed different points of view, the formal voice of theology is even more diversified. For an honest dialogue the members would do well to listen to various voices in formal theology. The diversity in formal theology becomes clear from at least two points. First, different theologians hold to different views on scripture, both in terms of interpretation and even the authority of scripture. It is to be expected in the case of The Bridge that the members will consult primarily evangelical theologians who see scripture as revelation of God and therefore as normative. Second, in this voice not only scripture and theology are consulted, but a dialogue may take place with other disciplines as well. The question is which role these other disciplines get and how they will be positioned vis-à-vis scriptural authority. For example, psychology can yield insight into mental health development of partners who live with domestic violence. For some members in The Bridge domestic violence is not a reason to endorse divorce because, according to them, scripture is silent on this issue in relation to divorce. Yet, others accept domestic violence as a legitimate reason for divorce, most likely claiming scriptural passages for their position.
Finally, The Bridge probably has authoritative documents: the voice of traditional theology. The most obvious traditional authority is scripture itself, but the church may also have polity documents and denominational directives. The church may also point to tradition as norm; even where the normativity of tradition is questioned, as in some evangelical churches, the practices of these churches often betray a significant influence of tradition: “But we have always done it this way …” Clearly, biblical authority is claimed by all members as final norm, even when they differ. Scripture functions in the voice of traditional theology as perhaps the most important norm. But this remains abstract as long as this claim is not embodied in the life of the community.
With this last remark we are back to espoused and operant theology. How can the members of The Bridge make sense of biblical authority (or sola scriptura) when they disagree over, what seems to many, elementary issues? At this point it is helpful to make explicit what was implicitly already: the distinction between scripture as source of authority and the understanding or interpretation of scripture. This is a theoretical and formal distinction, while our case study shows how the principle of scriptural authority is expressed through and embedded in different and even competing understandings of scripture. Biblical authority cannot simply be separated from the interpretations of the community members. Theologically the community can (and does) confess their belief in scripture as revelation of God and therefore as ultimate norm. Nevertheless, what the members claim to be the scriptural norm in this particular situation—the content of the scriptural norm—is their interpretation of scripture.
The issue for the community is to acknowledge the distinction between the authority of scripture and their own interpretation of scripture. When the community fails to make this distinction and when people make exclusive authority claims for their particular position, it will be very hard to set up an honest and respectful dialogue. Where the community succeeds in making this distinction, it opens up space for dialogue.
The analysis so far shows the complexity of the sola scriptura principle in the practices of faith communities. The relationship between the voices, the way the community deals with them, and the community’s view on the role of sola scriptura—as authority claim for scripture or for one’s own interpretation—within these voices, demonstrate various layers or normativity in this case study. This will be clarified in the next section, where we analyze our case study from a social identity perspective.
4 Social Identity and Sola Scriptura in the Bridge
Social identity theory investigates how people categorize themselves as a member of a group or community, depending on their situation and context. They take on a particular social identity, which involves several dimensions. The cognitive dimension refers to the ideas and values of the group that group members identify with. The affective dimension denotes people’s emotional attachment to the community and the normative dimension concerns the value that members attribute to their group membership.6 Moreover, groups often have a repertoire of accepted behavior, a common praxis, in which the members are expected to be or become competent.7
The social identity of a group, therefore, has a number of identity markers, such as knowledge and understanding of the group’s self-definition, its norms and values, goals, emotions and behavior. These identity markers are structured such that some are more important than others because they are more definitive of the core identity of the group and play a more important role in shaping and guarding the group’s identity than other markers. We can picture this as an onion model, with some identity markers at the core of the onion, others in the layer around the core, etc.8
In the socio-religious identity of The Bridge we can distinguish the following identity markers, and categorize them as core, middle, or edge. Core identity markers are: a broad evangelical identity, a strong sense of community, an open and missional attitude to outsiders, and bible-centeredness. Elements in the middle layers are: traditional and modern elements in the worship service, and an expanded leadership team including men and women. In the outer layer we find a couple of ethical ‘hot potatoes,’ and liturgical leadership by men, women, and youngsters.
Where in the model do we find the norms with regard to marriage, divorce, and cohabitation from our case study? From one perspective, the traditional norm of marriage is a specific way of behaving, and therefore is to be placed in the outer layer of the identity model. This seems the right place for this norm, because the identity layers in the middle involve complementarity of diverse church members in the various roles in liturgy and leadership. The resistance against Cathy and Peter taking up certain roles in the church is not because of an unwillingness to have a diversity of people in leadership or liturgical presidency. Nevertheless, Cathy and Peter’s relationship is for many a bridge too far. Why? Because their behavior is interpreted in light of various biblical texts that appear so clear in their support of the traditional norm of marriage, that any deviation from this marriage norm registers as a conflict with the core identity marker of bible-centeredness.
In this way, the essence of the tension in the case study is a link people construct between a behavioral norm in the outer identity layer on the one hand and the core value of bible-centeredness on the other hand. A behavioral issue in a particular male-female relationship is connected to a core identity marker, so that it gains in prominence and a challenge of this norm is experienced by some as an identity threat. One could perhaps advise not to link these two norms so directly in order not to cause an identity crisis. However, the fact that so many in the congregation object to Cathy and Peter’s behavior shows that they interpret their behavior as an identity threat or at least a blemish on their identity. With such an issue the group connects the outer layer with the core identity self-consciously in order to guard the group’s identity and the advice to disconnect these matters would fall on deaf ears. It rather seems that for many a particular marriage norm does not belong to the outer identity layer, but rather to the core, intertwined with the norm of bible-centeredness.
The case study thus demonstrates that many community members experience a close connection between the core identity markers of evangelical and bible-centeredness, and a traditional norm of marriage that would ordinarily belong to the outer, behavioral layer (and which is, therefore, less likely to be ‘identity sensitive’). Consequently a tension arises between the community’s desire to be missional and their interpretation of what it means to be evangelical which implicitly includes certain behavioral norms for at least some of the members. In many situations this tension was hardly noticed but in this new situation, the tension moves into the foreground, at first implicitly but gradually more explicitly. The sensitive issue now is that a tension exists between different core markers of the group’s socio-religious identity, namely bible-centeredness and being missional.
This analysis further points out that leaders and members of the group enter into a negotiation process about certain elements of their socio-religious identity. Perhaps the group should disconnect their behavioral norm of marriage from the core identity marker of being evangelical. But could they do so with identity loss in other core identity markers? Or, perhaps the marker of being missional, which seems to be interpreted as ‘contemporary and always open,’ should move to the middle layers of identity, which means welcoming diversity but secondary to maintaining an evangelical identity. That would change the identity from ‘evangelical and always open’ towards ‘evangelical and radically committed.’ This, in turn, would result in tension with several identity markers of contemporary Western society where discrimination, intolerance and exclusivism have become cardinal sins—‘always open’ has thus become almost a non-negotiable identity marker, not only of our society but also of our churches. Evidently, it is very challenging to maintain an ‘always open’ posture as core identity marker without losing other core identity elements. The main point is that this situation leads to negotiations about the shape of this church’s socio-religious identity, redefining and repositioning a number of identity markers, in order to define acceptable internal group relationships and to maintain the social relevance of the community for members as well as newcomers.
How does this social identity analysis enhance our remarks about the function of the sola scriptura principle in this case study? This particular evangelical church formulates its traditional stance on marriage with an exclusive appeal to scripture. Certainly some elements of this marriage norm can be detected in scripture, but many church members equate their particular view on marriage with the content of a few biblical texts. This enables them to label certain behavior as ‘not biblical.’ It appears that the label ‘biblical’ or, more formally, ‘sola scriptura’ legitimizes a certain interpretation of both marriage and scripture: the traditional norm of marriage is ‘biblical,’ Cathy and Peter’s relationship is not. It is this tight link between scriptural interpretation and marriage norms that leads to the verdict that Cathy and Peter do not live ‘biblically,’ not according the sola scriptura principle. Since Cathy and Peter’s behavior is perceived not to fit with the church’s core identity, many members question Cathy and Peter’s loyalty to the church. These members even feel compelled to see Cathy and Peter more as outsiders than as participants—and certainly not as leaders. Thus, it is not just a specific behavior (divorce, cohabitation) nor only a specific interpretation of scripture but rather the tight link to sola scriptura that leads to a certain exclusivity in order to guard the church’s socio-religious identity. This exclusivity, in turn, is in tension with other identity elements such as ‘missional’ and ‘inclusive,’ also core identity elements of the church as well as of our society.
The combination of both the four voices of theology and a social identity analysis thus demonstrates the presence of various layers of normativity that play a complex role in the community’s identity construction, which in turn includes various levels of identity that may or may not shift as tensions arise between the community’s identity and its social environment. Thus, the community continually renegotiates its socio-religious identity to adjust to and cope with various developments within and outside the community. The sola scripture principle as well as particular marriage norms each play their own role in the identity construction of the community. It appears that the sola scriptura authority principle is used to frame particular social norms of marriage (being married through culturally appropriate rituals at the city hall) as theological norm and thus implicitly as core identity markers.
5 Discussion
Above, we demonstrated how the four voices play a part in praxis and how social identity theory can shed light on this. In the evangelical and reformed traditions scripture is seen as norma normans. What does it mean to see scripture as norma normans in the model of the four theological voices? Can we elevate the sola scriptura principle to the voice above all voices, or to the identity mark par excellence? Let us close with a few observations about the functioning of sola scriptura in the faith community.
First, from social identity theory we learn that in the identity construction of the church, scripture is one of the identity marks, of which social dynamics determine its priority and value. Scripture does not stand apart from the social identity construction of the community. Sola scriptura has its own part but is not the sole normative factor, nor can it be elevated above this social playing field as neutral arbiter; indeed our understanding of scripture is always interpreted and therefore preliminary.
This does not have to lead to relativism. If it is recognized that sola scriptura is a social construction that often functions to legitimize some matters and not others, then one can also imagine alternative social constructions where different matters are legitimate or illegitimate. This may appear threatening to those whose social identity is tightly linked to particular matters that are legitimized by sola scriptura, but that remains the case only when one remains locked within one particular socio-religious church identity. If one succeeds in taking one or more different perspectives, this gives space, air to new conversations.9 This would open space for renewed dialogue about our interpretations of scripture, and would also help to surface potential abuse of power that may potentially arise from an inappropriate use of the sola scriptura principle.
Moreover, from a faith perspective we confess that we live in God’s world, in which he is active and involves people. The faith community is called to cooperate with Gods work in this world.10 Therefore we trust that when the community faithfully tries to understand God’s revelation through scripture and its application in our own times, the Holy Spirit guides this process. That is, we believe and confess that scripture and God’s work through the Holy Spirit come from outside of us, and that it is not merely a matter of social construction. Nevertheless, we humbly dialogue about our interpretations and about how we handle the authority of scripture, since we acknowledge that we can only make sense of these as they are embodied within our social and historical setting.
Our second observation is that much more in this situation is social construction. The entire system of norms surrounding marriage and divorce is a historical and social construction that defines particular forms and styles of relationships at a particular time and place. In our digital society, we have become aware of the immense variety in how different social groups and different cultures relate to marriage. As our western marriage norms shift—as they have always done—the church often responds by maintaining the standards of a particular time and place (often with an appeal to sola scriptura), but from time to time a careful and fresh interpretation of biblical texts and re-evaluation of their application today will help the church to see alternative ways to respond to and to construct norms relating to marriage and divorce.11 In addition, the concept of being missional is a social construction. In a society, where the church has lost its former status and influence, and where neo-liberalism has pushed the church out of the public arena, the church attempts to reassert itself in the public and to regain a measure of influence. The rediscovery of the missio Dei and the flood of books on emerging church, missional church and fresh expressions should be understood against this social background. Particular strands of biblical text and theological thinking proved relevant for both experimental churches and established churches, creating fertile ground for the rise of what we now know as ‘missional church.’ It is helping churches to envision alternative ways of doing church, as the church may also be helped to envision alternative ways of being faithful to the biblical picture of male-female relationships.12 These various social constructs continually interact with one another in a web of meaning, so that a continuous process of negotiation and repositioning is taking place, usually implicitly but with the ‘right’ incident, as in our case study, such negotiation becomes more explicit. Willingness to recognize that many of these aspects are part of our social and religious constructions opens up the dialogue while using the label ‘sola scriptura’ too soon or too indiscriminately functions as a conversation stopper.13
Third, to see sola scriptura as social construction enables us to identify the power dimension that can often be associated with its use.14 Using a label like ‘biblical’ or ‘sola scriptura’ and thereby claiming to speak with the voice of the tradition may be a helpful way to position oneself with regard to one’s understanding of scripture and tradition, as well as with regard to a current social issue. However, it also serves to mark identity boundaries. “We, the faithful, are ‘biblical,’ but you compromise.” Such a use of this label includes some within the boundaries of the community while marking others as deviant, dangerous or even as outsiders. In this sense, the sola scriptura label is part of the flow of power within the community. For instance, a church board might claim this label for its considered position on a particular issue as a way to overcome resistance or even squelch debate in the congregation where many take a different position. In this way the board would define their version of espoused theology as normative for the community, overruling other voices of espoused theology, and perhaps countering an operant theology they wish to exclude. If this is part of a normal process of negotiation and discernment, it can contribute to healthy maintenance of a community’s boundaries, but it can also evolve into power abuse, at which point the sola scriptura is used as a means of power to support one position, in this case the board’s, and to undermine others. In such a case the voice of traditional theology is used to overrule the voices of operant and espoused theology, with or without the help of formal theology. The flip side of this dynamic is when every church member is entitled to claim the label ‘biblical’ for their own personal position on an issue, as might be happening in The Bridge. This, again, may be part of normal discernment processes, but it may easily become a jockeying for position and power within a community, seeking to build coalitions for one view and squelching alternative views. Power is thus an integral part of the social construction of sola scriptura, as it functions to define the community’s identity and secure its boundaries.
Fourth, to label sola scriptura as social construction implies a community that supports the use and application of this concept. In situations of healthy identity negotiation, a community supports discussions on the issue that makes room for various positions and opinions. The claim by some that a particular position is ‘biblical’ can then be weighed through discussion and discernment in a setting of respect and equality. This, then, opens up space to consider the four voices of theology. For instance, the tension between espoused and operant theology may be brought to the surface, one’s historical and social connection to a particular theological tradition may be duly considered, and perhaps input from formal theology can be sought. Whether or not the community considers the debate in terms of these four voices, this is essentially the process that takes place, where the various voices are considered, tensions identified, and—where possible—brought into harmony. However, it is also clear that sometimes tension remains because of the way various voices are positioned in the socio-religious identity construction of the community. Thus, this process of discernment will also engage with identity construction, for instance by relieving tension between various identity elements by repositioning them from core to middle to edge (or vice versa), or perhaps by neutralizing an element so that it loses its role in defining community identity. Thus, the sola scriptura principle may function well within the community discernment processes, which makes the point that it takes a community to support the healthy functioning of the principle.
Finally, if sola scriptura is acknowledged as social construction, this creates alternative discourses for how to read scripture and converse together about issues that are important to us as a community of faith. In an open and diverse world, many issues enter our communities that are potentially divisive or that could form an identity threat. One way to handle such issues is to establish firm boundaries and attempt to close our communities off from undesirable outside influences. This is, in part, a healthy response of any organism: to ward off potential sources of conflict and disease. Yet, an organism is also nurtured and strengthened through its interaction with the environment. Thus, discernment processes that deal with the four voices of theology, and with the various levels of identity construction—whether implicitly (as usual) or explicitly—enable a community to engage meaningfully both with its own traditions, beliefs and behavioral norms and with the challenges posed by its societal and cultural context. If one were to believe that there is only one way to be ‘biblical,’ one way to abide by the sola scriptura principle, then such debate would be illegitimate, and any alternative positions would need to be resisted at all cost. If, however, one maintains a healthy tension between tradition and relevance, discernment processes are needed to identify what a particular community will accept as ‘biblical’ in ongoing negotiations and identity construction.
6 Summary
The purpose of this article was to demonstrate the complexity of the sola scriptura principle in the practices of contemporary faith communities. More questions have been raised than answers given, which underlines the point that faith practices are complex. The model of four theological voices shows different factors that have a role in these practices. We have demonstrated how scripture has a role in all four voices, and we have pointed to the complex relationship between scripture as source of authority and our own interpretation of scripture. However, this model and the social identity analysis show that scripture is not the only norm in situations. A social constructionist perspective further shows that authority is a social construction. Even the authority of scripture, though we confess that it comes to us from outside our communities and social identities, must be embedded in our communities through the mechanisms of social construction to make sense of who we are and where we fit in this world. In this way, the sola of sola scriptura receives its meaning, the primary source of authority in many communities of faith, and yet contested for its implications and interpretations.
Bibliography
Ashforth, Blake E., Spence H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley. “Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions.” Journal of Management 34, no. 3 (2008): 325–74.
Brown, Rupert. Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Cameron, Helen, Bhatti, Deborah, Duce, Catherine, Sweeney, James, and Watkins, Clare. Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology. London: scm Press, 2010.
Derks, Marco, Pieter Vos, and Thijs Tromp. “Under the Spell of the Ring: The Role of Marriage in Moral Debates among Orthodox Reformed Christians in the Netherlands.” Theology & Sexuality 20, no. 1 (2014): 37–55.
De Ruijter, Kees. Meewerken met God: Ontwerp van een gereformeerde praktische theologie. Kampen: Kok, 2005.
Gergen, Kenneth J. An Invitation to Social Construction. 2nd ed. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: sage, 2011.
Nullens, Patrick. Zorgen voor een eigenwijze kudde: Een pastorale ethiek voor een missionaire kerk. et: Tending the Willful Flock: Pastoral Ethics for a Missional Church. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015.
Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Learning in Doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
See for the social and religious contexts in which the phrase sola scriptura originated the contributions of Henk van den Belt, and Arnold Huijgen, in the present volume.
As noted before, the case study is entirely fictitious, including all names.
Helen Cameron et al., Talking about God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology (London: scm Press, 2010), 53–56.
Ibid., 54, italics original.
Cameron et al. call this the voice of normative theology. We propose to replace the term ‘normative theology’ with ‘theology of the tradition’ or ‘traditional theology.’ As will become clear in our article, norms function in each of the four voices.
Rupert Brown, Group Processes: Dynamics within and between Groups, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 311ff.
Etienne Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Learning in Doing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 136–141.
Blake E. Ashforth, Spence H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley, “Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions,” Journal of Management 34, no. 3 (2008): 329–331.
Kenneth J. Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 2nd ed. (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: sage, 2011), 28.
Cf. the title of Kees de Ruijter’s introduction to practical theology, Meewerken met God (Cooperating with God). Kees De Ruijter, Meeewerken Met God: Ontwerp van Een Gereformeerde Praktische Theologie (Kampen: Kok, 2005).
See the discussion in Marco Derks, Pieter Vos, and Thijs Tromp, “Under the Spell of the Ring: The Role of Marriage in Moral Debates among Orthodox Reformed Christians in the Netherlands,” Theology & Sexuality 20, no. 1 (2014): 37–55. They highlight the dialectic between being bible-believing and opening interpretive space for alternatives in the discussion on relationships and sexuality; for one issue, the ‘conservatives’ may opt for the ‘bible-believing’ stance with advocates for change desiring more interpretive space—but these positions might be reversed on a different issue. Thus, ‘bible-believing’ cannot simply be equated with ‘conservative,’ and neither can ‘interpretive’ or ‘hermeneutical’ be simply equated with ‘progressive.’ See also Patrick Nullens, Zorgen voor een eigenwijze kudde: Een pastorale ethiek voor een missionaire kerk (et: Tending the Willful Flock: Pastoral Ethics for a Missional Church) (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015).
With this observation we do not intend to take a particular stance in the debate about marriage.
To say that many aspects are part of our social construction is not to say that all is relative, that there is no ‘objective’ reality, or that there is no truth. These challenges and misunderstandings of social constructionism have been dealt with convincingly elsewhere. See Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 156ff.
See for the issue of power and power abuse Maarten Wisse’s contribution in this volume.