We live in a pluralistic society. This means that we have to find ways to live with people who hold many different ideas and beliefs, and who follow different lifestyles than us. We are not supposed to pass judgment on each other. Our society is made possible by respecting each other's personal rights and freedoms. This is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This "rights" mindset also shows up in the life of the church. This should not surprise us. The church is supposed to be the salt and light of the world. The reality is often the reverse in that the church picks up the habits and mindset of the society in which it lives. This includes the ideas of rights and freedoms.

In a society where we are to respect personal choices without passing judgment, believers may feel hard pressed to judge the opinions and actions of other believers. Discussions about the teachings of Scripture are peppered with phrases like, "I think," or, "in my opinion." Official teachings of the church can be overruled by saying, "I just don't see it that way," or, "I just don't agree." Possibly it might be put even stronger by saying, "I cannot in good conscience accept that." A personal opinion is given more importance than the accepted doctrine of the church. The individual overrules the community. The real clincher in the argument may be to say that it is one of the principles of the Reformation that every believer has the right to interpret the Bible for himself.

We should realize that talk of the right of every believer to interpret the Bible for himself is neither rooted in history, nor, more importantly, in Scripture. Historically, it is usually linked to Martin Luther's emphasis on the priesthood of all believers and the right of private interpretation. In my reading, I came across an article in which the author showed that this is a misrepresentation of what Luther taught. ¹ His two main points are worth passing on.

First of all, he pointed out that when Luther spoke of the priesthood of all believers he was dealing with the contrast that had developed over the centuries between clergy and laity. At the dawn of the Reformation, the prevailing thought was that the people could only have access to God through the priest. Over against this, Luther taught that each believer had direct communion with Christ through faith. Furthermore, the priesthood of all believers also obligated the believer to serve others. This explanation brings to mind the elaboration on the phrase concerning the communion of saints in Lord's Day 21:55. Each and every believer has direct communion with Christ. This is immediately followed by mentioning the obligation to serve fellow believers.

Second, he pointed out that when Luther spoke of the right of private interpretation, he did not mean that each believer was free to interpret Scripture for himself. Rather, private interpretation or judgment has to be understood in relation to the official ministry of the church. He quotes another author who stated,

For Luther ... the office of all believers was being exercised privately when one brother mediated the Word of God to another in personal converse. In this context, 'private' means simply, 'non official.'²

The suggestion that the Reformation established the right for every believer to interpret the Bible for himself is also contradicted by the development of various confessions. The followers of Luther were bound to the Augsburg Confession. The Church of England also formulated its faith in confessions. Those influenced by John Calvin also developed confessions which bound them together. The development of confessions in the three main streams of the Reformation is evidence that the Reformers did not teach that each individual has the right to interpret Scripture for himself but interpretation is the task of the community of believers.

If one wants to look for the practice of the right to interpret the Bible for oneself in the time of the Reformation, one would need to look to the Anabaptists. That right, however, led to endless splintering. It is estimated that, in Calvin's lifetime, there were at least thirty-five different types of Anabaptist groups.

More fundamental than an argument from history is the argument from Scripture. It does not support the right of each believer to interpret Scripture for himself. On the contrary, believers are expected to accept the teaching presented to them. We come across references to a clearly defined body of teachings. Jude, for example, wrote about "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). In the introduction to his teaching about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul starts off by listing some of the core teachings of the gospel. Over the centuries, the teachings of Scripture have been captured in the creeds and confessions of the church. Paul wrote to Timothy that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Besides this, one should also consider the logical consequences of the right of every believer to interpret Scripture for himself. The logical consequence is that the unity of the church would no longer be in the content of faith. At best there would be a unity in the activity of believing, but each person might have totally different beliefs. Logically, this would lead to a church that could include people from all the different religions of the world.

But what if, upon serious reflection, one cannot get his mind around a certain teaching of the church? Perhaps a person even has gone so far as seeking a change in a certain doctrine but the church has upheld its teaching. Does one then have to go against his conscience? Not really. Practically, a person could leave the church. Without doubt one could find some group that shares his or her private interpretation.

There is also another way, which is more in keeping with the nature of the gospel. That other way is to follow the teaching of the Apostle Paul as found in Philippians 2:3,

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

In the case of understanding Scripture, this would amount to considering the interpretation of others better than your own interpretation. It would mean that in humility one would say, "I submit myself to the wisdom and direction of others, even though I personally don't see it yet." In the end, this would be the better way, for this would give recognition to the fact that the interpretation of Scripture is not a private matter but belongs to the church as community.

All this impresses on us that we should not let ourselves be driven by the "rights" mindset of our society. In humility, we should be ready to set aside our own interpretation. After all, the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth."