Of course I have could have entitled this post ‘what are these books?’ but regardless of choice of title we still run into issues. What books should be included? We operate with 66 books with a firm line around them so that none others can enter – but other traditions use a different set. I have always struggled with the arguments that inevitably use various in- (fallible / errant) words to defend a doctrine of Scripture. Each lecture I sat through no New Testament introduction had to prove that the authorship was ‘apostolic’. I suspect that in part fuelled the view that became reasonably popular in the more-academic charismatic circles that the Old Testament prophets spoke the very words of God and the New Testament prophets were not at that level… the New Testament apostles being the counterpart of the Old Testament prophets. I have never driven a bus but I think without any training I could drive right through that without hitting anything! It all ends up so convenient; the church is built on the foundation of the prophets (=OT) and apostles (=NT)! Built on a book or on the lives of those who provoked people to follow the ‘Lamb wherever the Lamb goes’?
Yes Houston we have a problem.
The ‘canon’ is a problem that I do not think can ever be fully bottomed out. Not too different to that the Jews faced. They had books / scrolls, but it might surprise us if we were able to find out which books Jesus read. Maybe 1 Enoch was in there – a book that definitely does not go back to Enoch, not at any level in spite of being quoted as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’ No. It seems that the Jews formed – or moved toward forming a canon pretty much to exclude other writings, probably the list to be excluded included some of what we term the ‘New Testament’. There are other ‘gospels’ out there that are not included. Some might contain authentic sayings of Jesus, but…
I am very happy with the 66 we got! I treat them as authoritative (and inspired) in a way that I don’t treat other incredibly helpful (and inspired at a level) pieces of writing. The practical issue is the interpretation of what is written.
The first incredibly helpful presentation I heard on the authority of Scripture was from a youngish-definitely-up-and-coming person who went by the name of Tom Wright. (This was 1989; he has become fairly well-known globally since – his writings are more widespread even than mine!) He suggested that the authority of Scripture lay in its narrative and suggested if a lost (and unfinished) Shakesperean play had recently been found it might be a good analogy to the book(s) we have.
The play in 5 parts with:
- Act 1 being that of origins / creation
- Act 2 that of the Fall / falls
- Act 3 Abraham and the historic people of God that we read of in what we term the OT
- Act 4 being centred on Jesus, and
- Act 5 being the opening scenes of the New Testament and the spread of the message… then the script is clearly unfinished although within the existing texts there are ‘hints’ where the play will end.
Wright put forward that the authority of Scripture is the narrative with the centre being Jesus.
I have suggested we could have three responses to the ‘Shakesperean’ story:
- We realise the value of the writing, store the script in a museum and organise regular lectures on the play, its historical context etc.
- We draw together experts who could ‘write’ the missing part and through their knowledge enable us to have in our hands a completed play.
- We bring together Shakesperean actors who immerse themselves in what we have, rent a theatre and let the play roll. When the original script runs out just let them carry on with no predetermined script nor action.
Those three options do not have to be totally exclusive one of the other, but the priority has to be the third option. The theatre – our world; the actors – well these are not professionals, but are from the ‘not many…’ group! Passionate about the story, learning to act, react, speak, listen, challenge, making mistakes, but increasingly with a passion for the narrative and wanting to move the story forward toward the hints (‘new creation’) that are within the existing script. Acting ‘under’ the story, motivated by the Spirit, and with an eye on where the narrative is headed.
It does not answer all the issues of ‘canon’ or in what way are the texts ‘inspired’, but maybe that model describes what we do have before us and how we should respond to it. All our attempts to tie up the loose ends probably only take us to places that are unhelpful. ‘All Scripture’ (and what did that mean in the context of that text???) ‘is inspired… and is useful‘. That would not make for a very long lecture if that was the extent of what we had to say on our doctrine of Scripture. But once we make statements beyond that (the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’ (1978) for example maybe did not give us much material to enable our response to the Bible to be useful but certainly gave us material to argue with others!) we run into the favourite land that Protestants / evangelicals have inhabited: ‘I am right and you are wrong’. Now all readers of these posts know I am right(!!) but (sadly) I discovered years ago that being right did not seem to be high on God’s agenda as a goal for my life. ‘Being perfect as My Father in heaven is perfect’ was certainly nearer the goal for my life! And that perfection (in the context where Jesus made that statement) was to do with how I related to others. Inspired and useful. (Maybe useful should be translated ‘will nail you down’?)
Subsequent to reading Tom Wright’s narratival approach I discovered the Anabaptist ‘Jesus hermeneutic’. Scriptures are not at the centre, but Jesus is, therefore the Gospel accounts of Jesus are not subject to the clever theology of the letters but rather the other way round. I am not a Marcionite (see last post: the god of the Old Testament is not the God of the New) but to give a hint of where I will be headed in future posts – not everything declared about God / what the text implies are an accurate reflection of who God is.
Jesus is the express image of the invisible God.
I am not Barthian (apologies to all the current wave of Trinitarian writers) but his description of the three-fold dimension of the ‘word’ of God is helpful. Our speech (or for Barth ‘preach’) that is based on Scripture that bears witness to the revealed word of God in Jesus. If we wish to use inspired, inerrant etc. with capitals we reserve that for Jesus – although even he had to ‘learn’.
So far then my overall approach to Scripture is both that of narrative and that it has to pass through the ‘Jesus lens’ to be authoritative! For example the patriarchal parts? No they don’t pass.
I have not resolved everything but have noticed recently that there are some YouTubes and articles on ‘how reading the Bible made me an atheist’. We could certainly add to that ‘How reading the Bible made me a religious bigot / hate anyone different / afraid of the world / want Palestinians to be wiped out…’
We do have (a) difficult book(s).
I write this glad that we have the NT. One of my readings this morning was:
Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Useful. Now it requires me to align, for ‘we are NOT justified by faith alone!’