Scott Erickson, Response to Clifton-Soderstrom

We face another challenge with the model of faithful dissent because of the denomination’s current stance on a static authority of Scripture. I am not questioning the authority of Scripture per se, but rather the weight of that authority in the theological work of the church and how to deal with different points of interpretation. Paul Peter Waldenström, a Covenant founder, cast aside theological methodology with one question: “Where is it written?” Note that he did not ask, “What is the meaning of what’s written [in the Bible]?” Waldenström’s question espoused a static authority by implying that Mission Friends should quote the Bible literally rather than wrestle with its interpretation. His position aligned with the American evangelical movement of the nineteenth century. The result over time is that the ECC has relegated authority to a holy document rather than sustaining an active and lively discussion about the theological interpretation of Scripture within the body of believers. It is frankly foolish to believe we’re finished—or will ever be finished—with the task of biblical interpretation on homosexuality and gay marriage, as some have argued. We should never finish our discussions on the meaning and interpretation of God’s word.

Covenant framers would agree with [sociologist Richard] Sennet because they understood that power relegated to the Bible’s authority has been constructed by humans. The authority of Scripture can become its own power play or hierarchy, even used as an excuse to suspend dialogue and to avoid consideration of theological change. In ECC tradition, this means that faithful dissent on homosexuality can be too easily, and mistakenly, characterized as dissent against Scripture itself. Instead, Clifton-Soderstrom’s framework would be best understood as faithful dissent vis-à-vis denominational policy, the official stance of church leaders, and biblical literalism.

*****