Interpretating Scripture

Martin Luther, the sixteenth century monk, theologian and publicist, excited the Protestant Reformation. In his "To the Christian Nobility," Luther identifies three "walls" the Roman Catholic Church created to "protect" itself (Luther, 1). The "second...less substantial" wall deals directly with Romanists' monopolization of interpretating scripture (Luther, 4). Luther argues that no one entity has the solitary power to interpret scripture. In "To the Christian Nobility," Luther argues that no single person or institution has the authority to derive meanings from scriptures and declare them as correct or establish them as the standard. This is a direct attack on the "heretical and unchristian" elements in the church at the time (Luther, 4). Luther cites John 6:45 most effectively; the verse declares "that all Christians shall be taught by God: (Luther, 5). Logic follows, therefore, that all believers can know God through the scriptures and are entitled to some understanding. He furthers his point by pointing out that if the Romanists were correct in their claims, there would be no need for scripture at all (Luther, 4). While the opposition may "allege" that such a power was given to St. Peter, Luther asserts that whatever was given to Peter was not meant for "doctrine or government," as they would try to construe it (Luther, 5). Luther would maintain that all believers could have the understanding to interpret scripture, and putting the power into the hands of one man or establishment is dangerous and could result in unthinkable consequences. Currently, in the church bearing Luther's own name, a similar dilemma may be found. Delegates from the Evangelical Church in America, also known as the ECLA, recently voted to allow individuals in "life-long, monogamous" homosexual relationshihps to serve in ministerial roles (Pigott). To say this ruling has disturbed the Traditionalist Lutherans would be an understatement. Indeed, consequences of this decision are just beginning to be felt. An interesting factor in this whole controversy is how closely it relates to the one Luther found himself in the midst of hundreds of years ago: the interpretation of scripture. Luther denied that the pope had the "sole authority" and divinity to explicate scripture (Luther, 4); the ECLA is facing opposition for its radical take on age-old biblical claims. The debate hinged on "whether or not the Bible forbids active homosexuality" (Pigott). By a vote of two-thirds, the issue in question passed. This is a monumental decision not only for the Lutheran church, but it is also huge for all other Protestant denominations. Because the Lutheran church finds itself more or less in "the middle of Protestant theology," this could add "momentum" to the movement to increase the "liberality" of other denominations (Pigott); the Anglican and Episcopal churces of America have already reached such a conclusion. These varying interpretations on a select few verses of scripture could very well start a new round of religious reforms. Interpretation of scripture will always be an issue- who has the authority, who is correct, and why. It should be a continual topic of discussion, because it could literally mean heaven or hell for all involved. Bibliography Luther, Martin, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520). htpp://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/us-lutheran-church-split-over-gay-clergy-2/