I would highly recommend Alister McGrath's
Christianity's Dangerous Idea. It's one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. The book is essentially an attempt to answer the "question, "What exactly is Protestantism?" His basic thesis is that it is the outworking of idea that "all Christians have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves." And that principle -- the idea that we don't need an outside an outside authority to tell us what the Bible means, lies at the heart of the notion of
Sola Scriptura.
Here's a review of the book I wrote some time back to help you see if you might find it helpful:
----------------------------------
Introduction
Alister McGrath, an Anglican priest, is a widely published and influential theologian and apologist. Currently the Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, he is the author of such books as
The Dawkins Delusion,
The Twighlight of Atheism, and, of course,
Christianity's Dangerous Idea, the subject of this review. In general, the book highlights the long history of diversity in Protestant thought, which McGrath finds rooted in Protestantism’s fundamental premise: namely, that each Christian has the right to interpret Scripture for him or herself. In reviewing this argument, a brief summary of the book's major ideas will be followed by a critical interaction with some of those concepts, followed by a few concluding thoughts.
Brief Summary
McGrath's work is appropriately titled, for it perfectly captures the central thesis of the entire work, namely, that “the dangerous new idea, firmly embodied at the heart of the Protestant revolution, was that all Christians have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves.” This thesis is what is to set apart the book from other histories of the Protestant Reformation. McGrath intends to give more than a summary of what happened. He is more interested in answering the question, “What is Protestantism?” For McGrath, it is a method, a grand experiment, and a dangerous idea with exciting but dangerous consequences.
He defends his thesis by breaking the book into three broad parts. First, he gives an overview of the Protestant Reformation, particularly emphasizing its genesis in Luther and Calvin (though Zwingli and the Anabaptists are noted, too) and the schools of thought that developed following them. The point is to show that there was never a single “Protestantism,” but rather several “Protestantisms.” As the story unfolds, the subdivision of those schools (as well as those of the Reformation in England) leaves the reader with a profound sense of how the broad agreement on the right to individual interpretation led to little doctrinal agreement.
In Part II, which McGrath titles “Manifestation,” he delves into the beliefs that unite and divide Protestants. He first discusses the place of Scripture in the movement and concludes,
- It is important to appreciate from the outset that the Protestant strategy of prioritizing an engagement with the Bible has led to a multiplicity of belief outcomes. In one sense, “Protestantism” designates a way of doing theology rather than any given set of possible or specific outcomes.
One can see McGrath's original thesis restated and strengthened. The dangerous idea is now a methodology that may or may not (often the latter!) result in “orthodox” theology. Doctrines such as justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, the sacraments, and predestination are all discussed, none of them agreed upon by all the Reformers. McGrath then extends the argument. Protestantism is not just a dangerous idea or methodology; it is, in a sense, Darwinian, adapting to the culture by entrepreneurial ministers seeking to share their faith.
All this leads quite appropriately to the third part, which discusses the future of Protestantism, especially in light of the rise of Pentecostalism. McGrath's “grand narrative” suggests that, at its core, Protestantism, though having “a high degree of continuity,” has no “ absolute identity.” Pentecostalism is so influential precisely because it gives the uneducated and the laity an immediate experience with God, thus truly removing the clerical barriers the traditional Church has placed between man and his Maker. But this is no “pure” form of true Protestantism, for again, Protestantism is not a set of doctrines. Thus, McGrath makes no predictions as to what it will look like in the coming generations. Instead, he offers a fitting conclusion for his study: “The future of Protestantism lies precisely in Protestantism being what Protestantism actually is.”
Critical Interaction
Christianity's Dangerous Idea is a history of the Protestant Reformation. It is not, however, intended merely to be a history for history's sake. If one wants to know why another history is needed or what sets this book apart, McGrath offers this answer: “This book sets out to tell the story of the origins and development of this radical form of Christianity, not to record the past but to understand the present and anticipate the future.” Given this stated purpose, it may be best to categorize this work as a philosophical analysis of Protestantism more than anything else. If it is true that history is to the philosopher what the laboratory is to the scientist, McGrath is well suited to this task, being a professor of historical theology holding doctoral degrees in both theology and science.
The book's structure is admirably suited to defend its basic thesis. By discussing the history of Protestantism first—particularly its origination but also some of its development—the reader is presented something of an inductive case by which he can come to see McGrath's basic idea being played out. It may have been relatively simple for Luther and others to declare that Scripture ought to be interpreted by individuals; it is quite another to see how that idea plays out. For such an idea is essentially decentralized, meaning that how it develop is ultimately unpredictable. Thus in characteristic clarity, McGrath can say,
- In the end, not even the personal authority of Luther could redirect this religious revolution, which anxious governments sought to tame and domesticate. By its very nature, Protestantism had created space for entrepreneurial individuals to redirect and redefine Christianity. It was a dangerous idea, yet it was an understanding of the essence of the Christian faith that possessed an unprecedented capacity to adapt to local circumstances. From the outset, Protestantism was a religion designed for global adaptation and transplantation.
The story he tells bears out this summary. That narrative “highlighted at least some of the main themes of Protestant belief, while hinting at an endemic diversity that is essential to the movement’s origins and development. But the real strength of the book is in the second part, which brings that diversity is brought into sharp relief. Disagreements over justification by faith alone (e.g., the Reformation in Switzerland rejected the doctrine), church governance (e.g., Puritan congregationalism vs. Anglican monarchy), and the nature and practice of the Lord's Supper—indeed, even what it should be called—were, and are, all matters of extensive debate.
In light of this, McGrath consistently calls attention to “the other” as a uniting force for the diversity commonly called “Protestantism.” That “other” has almost always been Catholicism. But in a discussion well placed in support of the goal of understanding Protestantism's future, he argues that it is not Catholicism that today serves that role, but “the perceived secularism and incipient atheism of America’s cultural opinion makers.” Though he gives little evidence for this claim, Western conservative Protestants will almost certainly instinctually find themselves in agreement with the assessment. Liberal Protestants will perhaps object, but for them, he offers a different “other” entirely consistent with the (essentially?) fragmented nature of Protestantism generally:
- What of liberal Protestants, still a very significant constituency within the American religious scene? On the whole, these Protestants do not regard secularizing forces in America as an enemy, being broadly sympathetic to their goals, if occasionally uneasy over their fine detail. Protestants in this constituency tend to regard conservative Christians, irrespective of denominational allegiance, as “the other” and occasionally use the term “fundamentalist” in a purely derogatory sense to stigmatize them.33 This points to the fragmentation of “the other” within Protestantism as a whole.
These statements a particularly interesting as, on the one hand, they go to support McGrath's thesis. Liberals see conservatives as “the other” and, though in broad disagreement amongst themselves on many points, find unity in their opposition to what they perceive to be a threat to what they value. But on the other hand, this also presents a challenge to the overall thesis of the book. For McGrath, Protestantism is a dangerous idea precisely because it gives the individual the right to interpret Scripture. And yet, by McGrath's own admission, much of what grounds liberal Protestantism is a rationalism and secularism of Scripture itself and the notion that Scripture is not the supreme authority over the Christian's life. Here, then, Protestantism is no longer about the right to interpret Scripture, but now even includes the right to judge its veracity!
What this shows is that the book's overall argument is certainly defensible. The historical analysis and accompanying doctrinal analysis lend credibility to the thesis. Whatever Protestantism is, it is certainly individualized, and for that reason unpredictable in its development. But if this is true, then McGrath's claim that Protestantism is more of a methodology than a theology deserves more consideration. Given the above, it actually appears that Protestantism is, fundamentally, about hermeneutics. For while there is a wide plethora of hermeneutical approaches in Protestantism, they do all seem to have in common just what McGrath has been arguing: an appeal to an individual's understanding of Scripture rather than that of an external authoritative body.
The strength of this work and this argument is evident from the high praises it has received in academic circles. Even some Catholics have found it commendable. Fr. Robert Birely of the University of Chicago, after reviewing the book, asks what lessons Catholics may draw from it. He answers,
- First, the need for an emotional as well as an intellectual element in evangelization and catechesis, without losing sight of the rote of reason that Pope Benedict has accentuated; second, recognition of the importance of the local Christian community or parish, without neglect of the diocese or universal church; third, awareness of the necessity for regular adaptation to changing circumstances along with gratitude for the authority that keeps adaptation within acceptable bounds.
For purposes here, the third answer is particularly informative, for McGrath makes much of Protestantism's ability to adapt to new challenges without losing its basic identity, a program that has been carried out particularly well by (which explains the success of) Pentecostalism.
Other reviewers confirm the strength of the argument even in their critique of the book's weaknesses. Ronald Rittgers, for instances, offers mostly praise, but then says, “It is true that the defining Protestant idea is dangerous. But one can question whether McGrath has plumbed the full depths of its threat.” This “complaint” is not that McGrath's argument fails, but rather that, having proved his case, he fails to explore its deeper implications! Rittgers goes on to suggest,
- the real danger is that when confronted with the competing Protestant truth claims about crucial matters of faith- including those that touch on salvation- theologically reflective Protestants may lose confidence in their ability to interpret or even trust scripture, and thus their ability to know God. Sebastian Franck saw this danger already in the 16th century and thus opted for a Spiritualism that sought to transcend all dogmatic claims about God- except Spiritualist ones, of course. Fortunately, most Protestants do not experience this complete loss of epistemic confidence, at least not on a permanent basis, which may be the reason McGrath avoids discussing the risk.
The criticism is note-worthy, for it forms the basis of basic Catholic apologetics against Protestantism as a whole. McGrath could well respond, however, that his work is not intended to be an apologetic for Protestantism or even an inquiry as to its theological implications, but rather simply an attempt to understand its essential nature by an examination of its history. That such a study would raise questions worthy of further research only shows the worth of his efforts.
Still, even given McGrath's hypothetical answer, even non-Catholics should find that issue worthy of reflection. Pastors, scholars, and laymen alike would do well, after reading the book, to grapple with the question of how it is they come to their beliefs on any given topic. If Protestantism, in and of itself, produces no particular theological results, then then “true Christianity”as Christ intended it cannot be found in Protestantism generally. But here the previous suggestion would perhaps prove helpful: perhaps McGrath's book should force the reader to reconsider the foundation of his entire hermeneutical approach. For it is that which determines one's final theological conclusions. Protestantism, it seems, simply allows one the freedom to experiment with and follow such methods to their (theo)logical conclusions.
Conclusion
Overall, Christianity's Dangerous Idea makes a compelling argument. It is clearly written and strongly supported. McGrath's own theological persuasions are hard to extrapolate from his treatment of the history and doctrines of Protestantism, which points to his even-handedness and objectivity. All this strengthens the validity of his conclusions.
Yet despite McGrath's obvious optimism regarding the future of Protestantism (at least insofar as its existence is concerned—he certainly doesn't think it is going away any time soon), the strength with which he argues his position leaves one wondering about the unity Christ promised the Church. It is clear that, on Protestantism, unity is not merely an external cohesion under a single, visible authority as in Catholicism. But neither does it appear doctrinal. It seems that the essence of Protestantism, at least for McGrath, is in its method. How, though, does that fit with the New Testament? Did Jesus merely leave His Church with a way of doing theology and then inspire the apostles to write the message that she was to interpret? Perhaps such questions are exegetical and theological in the end and, thus, have no place in a work such as this. But with the diversity—indeed, perhaps the necessary diversity—of Protestant theologies so well established, one naturally is left to wonder how such a reality measures up to Jesus' expressed will for His children. If nothing else, Christianity's Dangerous Idea at least serves as an excellent means to stimulate just such a discussion.
Selected Bibliography
Birely, Robert. “Protestantism’s Big Idea.”
National Catholic Reporter 44, no. 12 (February 8, 2008): 1a, 2a.
Gilson, Etienne.
The Unity of Philosophical Experience. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.
McGrath, Alister.
Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2009.
Rittgers, Ronald. “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.”
The Christian Century 126, no. 8 (April 21, 2009): 39-40.
----------------------------------------------------------
So, not EXACTLY a book about the history of SS, but I think this is about as close as you'll get unless you want to start looking at academic papers. Hope this helps.
Jac, you're such a knave!