Icon depicting the First Council of Nicaea. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’ve seen this discussion taking place in the blogosphere (and wider social media venue) so I’ve had some time to think about it.
What would happen if the canon wasn’t closed?
That is usually the question. Some would add MLK’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail while others may wish to add something closer to the Apostles, such as GThomas or 1st Clement.
For me, I’m not sure our canon is closed, only our understanding of what the canon is. If the canon is limited to a set of books within what we call “the bible” then it is closed because of the theological necessity at one point or the other to ensure our Church is founded only upon the words of the Apostles (or, you know, their pseudonymous followers — I’m looking you, “Timothy”)
In my opinion, the “canon” includes Scripture, the Creeds, and the writings of the Church that do not contradict the previous two.1 This means even the writings of various Christians such as John Wesley. So, my canon is not necessary closed as it is open to progressive revelation based on two firm foundations.
This isn’t exactly the UCC version of “God is still speaking…” but something along the lines of John 16.13 where we are still being guided from something, along a path, to some place.
What are your thoughts?
Btw, if I were to issue a New New Testament, I would include Thomas, Barnabas, 1st and 2nd Clement, Ignatius’s letters (short form), and Diognetus. I would also include the creed from the Council of Sardica and tell the East to bite me.
“contradict” is understood as a highly nuanced term. ↩
My book on scripture’s authority, Scripture and the Authority of God, makes clear where I stand. I take the whole of scripture utterly seriously, and I regret that many who call themselves “inerrantists” manage to avoid the real challenge at its heart, that is, Jesus’ announcing that in and through his work God really was “becoming king” over the world in a whole new way. So I don’t call myself an “inerrantist” (a) because that word means what it means within a modernist rationalism, which I reject and (b) because it seems to me to have failed in delivering a full-blooded reading and living of what the Bible actually says. It may have had a limited usefulness as a label against certain types of “modernist” denial, but it buys into at least half of the rationalist worldview which was the real problem all along.
Mainline Protestants have a different perspective. They have a more modernist theology. So, for instance, they would read the Bible, not as the inerrant word of God, but as a historical document, which has God’s word in it and a lot of very important truths, but that needs to be interpreted in every age by individuals of that time and that place.
Mainline Protestants tend to also believe that Jesus is the way to salvation. But many mainline Protestants would believe that perhaps there are other ways to salvation as well. People in other religious traditions, even outside of Christianity, may have access to God’s grace and to salvation as well, on their own terms, and through their own means.
Mainline Protestants are much less concerned with personal conversion. Although they do talk about spiritual transformation, they’ll often discuss a spiritual journey from one’s youth to old age, leading on into eternity. So there is a sense of transformation, but there isn’t that emphasis on conversion — on that one moment or series of moments in which one’s life is dramatically changed.
Finally, mainline Protestants are somewhat less concerned with proselytizing than evangelicals. Certainly proselytizing is something they believe in. They believe in sharing their beliefs with others, but not for the purposes of conversion necessarily. The idea of spreading the word in the mainline tradition is much broader than simply preaching the good news. It also involves economic development. It involves personal assistance, charity, a whole number of other activities.
Theopedia suggests that Mainliners are basically liberal with little or no concern about doctrine. I don’t think that is fair. Indeed, as the discussion shows — there are several theologians that are active in the life of the Mainline Church. Of course, they may just mean the Mainline Protestants.
In describing Mainline, I would start with our view of Scripture. Believe it or not, but George W. Bush, even though he was described as an Evangelical president, probably put it best when asked if the “bible was literally true:”
You know. Probably not … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament, for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is “God sent a son.”
Bush is, of course, a United Methodist Christian. His statement of faith, I would suggest, begins not with some reliance upon the “truth of Scripture” as “infallible” but with Christ.
The question of the errancy or inerrancy of the Scripture is one which is strange to the Westminster Divines.…To contend that the Westminster Confession teaches the inerrancy of the Scripture because it does not assert that there are errors in the Scripture is to impose a modern problem on a pre-scientific statement.…Thus in an ahistorical manner, the Westminster Confession is still drawn into a controversy to which its authors were not a party. Certainly the Westminster Divines believed, and the Confession states, that the Bible is true and infallible. But to equate these terms with the modern concept of inerrancy is to impose upon the Westminster Confession criteria for proof and apologetic implications which had no place in their thinking.
Granted, some do not take kindly to this interpretation of the WCF. Others, such as the well beloved Evangelical Presbyterian Church, while upholding the WCF, affirm the inerrancy of Scripture.
Modern Evangelicals place “inerrant and infallible” upon all things to which the bible speaks — history or some some deluded notion of science. Scripture is devoid of the human witness and becomes something God himself wrote. Thus, for them, Scripture is all-sufficient. Mainliners reject this notion. Mainliners should agree that Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, but that Scripture is not all sufficient (as it states in the WCF, for example). Further, Mainliners will adopt some form of historical criticism (usually) in digging deep into Scripture to discover what the authors said, compared to what we have been told, and what we say, the authors say.
In Mainline Christianity, Tradition will play a part as well. This is clearly evident in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy (reserving the notion that members of these two groups may object to such a label), the United Methodist Church, the various Anglican groups, and various Presbyterian groups. Thus, that which separates Evangelical from Mainline is the view of Scripture. Scripture is not infallible, inerrant, or all-sufficient.
So, I want to know — who are the mainliners you find inspirational. Unlike Rainer, I am not going to restrict the list to the United States. But, they should be mainline. While Evangelicals may lay claim to some of them (such as Bush and Wright (odd pairing) if you look at their statements and theology, they are Mainline).
Please note, I do not consider Catholics and Orthodox mainline. I am, however, collecting names and the such – as well as additions to the definition of what makes something mainline. Others will disagree.
I’ve updated the list – and will update the list. I’ve also had the benefit of discussing on various forums, from various angles. I think we done, I’m going to call the list “Top X Influential Non-Evangelical (i.e., inerrantists) Christians.”
I believe it is time for us to begin to think about these things! Period! Joel Watts last blog in this blog is excellent if one take seriously what he really believes about the Bible! I was going to publish this in there as a reply, but I decided to make my reply into a blog. It may be better for readers to understand what is my point on that, something that, before God I have been struggling since my pastoral days, and, after which, when I came to a firm position, not only I find peace and comfort in God, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of God, His Word and what His Word may represent to us. So, here it goes:
Admittedly, even as a proponent of Sola Scriptura, I cringe when I read tenets of faith that use the words you mentioned. I fail in accepting that the people who chose those words really have any sense of their meaning. In the other hand there are traditions that are in and of itself biblical traditions and should be respected and used authoritatively simply because they originated in Scripture; but there is also what I have called for many years “tr-addiction”; these are “traditions” that became “tr-additions” and later turned into “tr-addictions”, or, they are inventions that become additions to the faith, that later culminate with being so “ingrown” and ingrained that they are hard to dispel as an addiction to a drug. Maybe we (Joel and me) should start a “tr-addiction rehab!”.
Interestingly enough, most of these “tr-addictions” originated not from more moderate biblical thinkers, but from the very same people who claim that the Bible is what the Pure Life says it is! Oh, need examples? Easy: Organizations who say what Pure Life says about the Bible add to the Salvation “condition” (there is no condition for Salvation by the way, other than being not saved), to believe what they say about the Bible! Yes! This simple, and… this ridiculous! It is no longer the Cross alone, but also, the 66 Canon, word by word, letter by letter! I propose that the belief that believing the 66 Canon word by word is a good thing, but it turns into a bad thing when it is made into a condition for Salvation! Then it is an addition that becomes a tr-addition, that later turns into a tr-addiction! This is where flawed logic leads us: the place at which we wanted to avoid being…
BTW, this is not the purely fundamentalist and Pentecostal or even the Primitive Baptists fault alone! I have been shunned by Presbyterians (who unlike the Vegetarians who eat vegetables, they eat Presbyters) because I have some Lutheran views about the Canon; some of them don’t think I can be saved if I hold to Lutheran views about the Canon… I have to subscribe fully with the Westminster Confession of Faith (which I do in 98% at least) which says that the Bible is a 66 books Canon! Then they accuse Roman Catholics for elevating traditions to the level or over the Bible! Isn’t that something?
Even Jesus on his way to Emmaus (Luke 24) said that “Moses (the Law) The Prophets and the Psalms speak of Him…” So, allow me a bit of fun here, but even Jesus may not have been a 66 books Canon believer, huh? Well, I know that the N.T. had not been written yet… but, I hope you get my drift… even Jesus was Christocentric in His view of Scripture!
The idea of a Tr-addiction Rehab Center is growing…
(Oh, brother, there goes my opportunity to blog here exclusively as a “conservative”… unless it is added “non-conformist” to that)
Christians tend to use Scripture. Let’s not kid ourselves. It is difficult to be a Christian and not have sometime, or another, used Scripture. For some, it is the central aspect of the faith. For others, it is a guide of some sort. Many use it as a proof-text while others use it story time.
What I want to briefly speak to is the issue of scriptural authority (SA) and how we use it, towards the proper use of it.
First, in an extremely unbiblical view, there are those on the far right, almost cultic side, of SA. For instance, there is the Pure Life Ministries proclaiming as the first tenet of their statement of faith that they “believe the Bible is the inspired and infallible and authoritative Word of God.” That covers some ground, doesn’t it? But, let us dig further. In another place, they write,
Pure Life Ministries is founded upon the authority of the Word of God as the supreme and all-sufficient Truth for overcoming sin.
Do you see the problem here? They now incorporate “all-sufficient” into the idolization of Scripture. By this circular logic, Pure Life needs nothing else except their own interpretation of Scripture. No psychology, no science, no medical help. This is the same tactic so-called faith healers use to slaughter innocent children when they refuse medical help. After all, medical help is not in Scripture. Focus what is going on here. The Trinity is not as important as their view of Scripture. The death and resurrection of Christ is not as important as their view of Scripture. What is important is to cement in their follows that the leaders are the sole determining factor of what “the bible says.”
They remove Tradition, Reason, and the intellect from reading Scripture. The interpretation must not be challenged, either by question or by reason. Further, there is no help outside of Scripture. In effect, they have replaced God with the bible, as is so evidence in their statement of faith.
This, in case you don’t get it, is the wrong approach to SA.
The Articles of Religion says plainly enough that Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Scripture then begins not a rule book, but a guide book. It allows for us to differ over some things, accept reason and Tradition, and to remain united. SA is not about providing for us everything, on every topic. It is not about restricting what we use to live or use to read Scripture. It is about focusing on the topics in Scripture showing us we are in need of salvation.
The all-sufficient approach must require someone to seek their life structure from Scripture in such a way as to divorce the Text from reality. Do they likewise seek only medical help as offered in Scripture? What of finances? Where is the license in Scripture for such groups as Pure Life Ministries? Rather, in a moderated SA, wherein Scripture provides for us the authoritative narrative do we understand our need for salvation as well as our individual responsibilities.
I asked this question before about another commonly used term to display the badge of Christian differences by, yes, the Christians, and was astounded by the combined list of things that people used to define that term. So now, let me come before you and ask this is honest question; no sarcasm here, if that would ever be possible, but really, it is legitimate:
I would like for anyone who is interested in the issue and has used the term “fundamentalist” before about someone or a Christian organization, how they define it and what are the issues that they consider before they label someone, group or organization “fundamentalist”. Note that I am speaking of Christianity only.
is the term related to the current issues?
is the term related merely to feelings, likes, dislikes, etc. or is there a “firm foundation” for it?
how many definitions can we find?
is the term being used more often today because of the in-flux of agnostics in social media and/or because of some TV specials recently presented on TV?
What is the antonym for the term “fundamentalist?”
Back when I preached in the fundamentalist church, we didn’t have iPads. Sure, it wasn’t that long ago, but in tech years, it was decades.
A few years ago, when I preached at my local UMC church, I did use the iPad.
Tonight and this weekend, I am once again preaching.
I was tempted to bring my iPad. After all, it allows for last minute changes to the sermon, looks really cool holding it, and is there incase I need back up via Logos.
But, it also contains my games and other… things.
So, instead of preaching from the iPad, I’m going to have my notes, my rosary hidden in my pocket, and my REB. This is not to say anyone who uses the iPad to preach, or some other tablet, is committing some blasphemous error, even though you clearly are, but I think in the end, if we are to preach, and the more so about the sufficiency of Scripture, then having the table there, complete with distractions, games, and other non-Scriptural things, present may send a mixed message.
But, I am not a regular preacher. Nor do I want to be.
A retired UMC Elder writes in regards to bringing the canon of the UMC up to standard. He does an admirable job, although he bases it more on removing the stench of anti-Catholicism that we have otherwise amended. He suggest two ways to officially do this:
The disconnect between our publications and Article V needs to be resolved. This could be done by modifying Article V to permit United Methodists who desire to do so to accept a more extensive definition of biblical content. The process is not easy, since it involves amending our Constitution to make a restrictive rule more flexible (Paragraphs 17 and 59, 2012 Book of Discipline). There are two options to consider: one approach would expand the article; another would shorten it.
I am in full agreement with this; however, I believe that it should be in part to do away with Luther’s legacy but also because the early Church made use of these books. Why not use, or rather officially allow the use of these improperly excluded books, in our litanies and liturgies?
And this is why Evangelicals are wrong. If the doctrine of inerrancy is your first go-to doctrine, you are doing Christianity wrong. For other posts related to inerrancy, click the link at the bottom of the post. But to sum up, their first doctrine is not Jesus, nor the Trinity, but a doctrine created recently and used as a means to validate faith.
Some people need to read Barth. Or the Church Fathers. Heck, even Calvin.
Inerrancy is a great motivator to sell bibles. Why? Because inerrancy has made Scripture the ideal, the center of Christianity. Suddenly, the bible is the most important part of our faith, rather than Christ or the Apostolic word. Because Scripture is inerrant all you need is it and you are done. Inerrancy thus excludes serious study, critical thinking skills, and any meaningful theological development.
Inerrancy is nuanced. Some believe only the original autographs are inerrant, without error. To accomplish this, they must dismiss redaction criticism (and historical criticism in general) and assert an unprovable tenant, that there were original autographs. Textual Criticism is no more. Real archaeology is chided as the devil’s work and science is dismissed as witchcraft. Others believe the bible is inerrant in what it teaches. Even this is nuanced. What does the bible teach? We go from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism. Women are near-slaves. Rape is sometimes okay. I could go on, but you get the picture. Some simply state the bible is inerrant in what it teaches about salvation, not that this picture is any clearer.
I have written about my stances before, but let me encourage you to read Henry Neufeld’s "When People Speak for God" and Edward Vick’s "From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully" for some rather deep insight into better views. I hold to an inspired view of Scripture with just enough nuance to escape any serious challenge to my position. Scripture is not the revelation of God; it is a human response/record to God’s revelation of himself either in word, deed, or creation. This may include records, poems, songs, or rampant and ill-conceived speculation. God uses this clay to bring about his ultimate reality while having had incarnated it and enlivened in the only inerrant and infallible Word, Jesus “Logos” Christ. Thus, Scripture becomes.
The Chicago Statement of Inerrancy is a farce, leaving me wonder what Luther with his creation of sola scriptura would have said about it.
Carlson notes an early battle between allegoricalists and those who would rather a more honest source in critiquing the Torah.
For [the Scripture] are set out like many diverse typecasts. Each person, then, having his own predisposition [at the outset], then examines the Scriptures, and, once he finds everything in them, he impresses upon them his own predisposition — which (as I said) is like wax — and he forges whatever sort of God he so desires. (as quoted from the Homilies, pg 23.)
The Pseudo-Clementine homilist takes to task those who force external meanings on Scripture, surrendering Scripture to allegory rather than any meaningful sense. Generally, the author speaks against the legendary Simon Magus (i.e., gnostic?) who treats the Torah as a text to be twisted and interpreted to mean the God of the Old Testament is somehow inferior to the God of the New.
There is more to this, however, as our Homilist believes there are segments of the Torah redacted with foul material.
It is interesting this early textual criticism as well as a need to discover what the Text meant and now what it can be read as.
Lots of good stuff in Carlson’s book as well as, it looks like, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.