Home » Featured, story & idea

Authority, Scripture and Story

Submitted by JoshuaDbauIII on March 19, 2009 – 11:01 amView Comments
Print This Post

6a00d8341bffb053ef00e54f1621908833-500wiIt is my unyielding assurance that the scriptures assist in informing humanity regarding God. However, the scriptures are a kaleidoscopic element of the overall portrait of God, not the whole portrait of who God is, what God has done and what God is doing in history. To know God is an exercise in the science and doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and humanity. This faith is informed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ as heard in the Holy Scripture, but more importantly, humanity is informed by the living incarnate Jesus Christ existing as community. Scripture is a record of how God has acted in human history: to whom God spoke, to whom God lead and to what God has attempted to do in history through the lives of individuals. However, scripture cannot be the sole vehicle through which we attempt to know and be known by God, for God is far more imaginative to merely provide humanity with a do-it-yourself owner’s manual.

Today we have a cannon of scripture, which simply means the officially accepted, authoritative list of authoritative books that comprise it. As actual individuals developed the New Testament recording their actions in history we now have 27 writings that are accepted as scripture. However, these books tend to monopolize Christianity’s view of who God is. In some cases, individuals are unable to see that knowing and being known by God are not found in encountering texts but encountering the living God. The Scriptures are the story of God, and the Gospels are the story of Jesus, but the story of Jesus must become our story. Thus the Scriptures have the immensely powerful ability to inform our story.

How does the concept and structure of the canonization of scripture affect what individuals are able to articulate about God in their pursuit of an orthodox existence? Thus, we ask does the canonization of scripture entail a monopoly upon the truth about God? Where does the truth about God come from?We must critique  “The Bible says it so I believe it”. The text of scripture itself does not give the impression that any sort of human approval upon a particular text indicates that it is in any way an absolute set of principles for detailing structures of truth. In protest I say, “the Word was made flesh–not paper!” The core question regarding the canonization of scripture is whether or not scripture is an authoritative list of texts or if it is a list of authoritative texts.

I find myself coming down on the side of the latter, that the cannon is a list of authoritative texts. Questions that lead me to this conclusion are those of human authority such as who decided that this was all there was to the canon? I am not attempting to say that those who were involved in the canonization process had sinister motives, or that God was not present among them as they decided such things; however, I am wondering if there are consequences to their actions that were not foreseen.

It would be permissible to say that the canon was formed as a response to what many perceived as heresy. Later, at the time of the Reformation under Luther, Scripture was given nearly all authority in the doctrine of sola scriptura. The way in which many Christians take the doctrine today is one of a ‘literal’ reading of scripture without concern for context or for any illumination by the spirit that did not come directly from the text. There are many Christians who want the validation of the scriptures over their involvement in worldly affairs. They seek desperately to be justified by the text. However, Jesus taught and did things that were in conflict with the texts of scripture. (Ex. Matthew 5:20-22, 5:27-30, 5:31-32, 5:33-37, 5:38-42, 5:43-48) But from the standpoint of a follower of Jesus, if authority lies within the texts then there is no reason to procure what Jesus is saying for it is not being justified by the text and even though it is being transformed by the Spirit, it is of no value.

Where do the texts come from? The New Testament came to be in roughly three stages. First, the 40’s and 50’s CE. We have the letters of Paul. Paul did not write down a Gospel account, however, he seems to have known a great deal about Jesus–who he was and what he did. (Ex. 1 Corinthians 11:23-60, Paul’s institution of the Lords supper.) Second, from the late 60’s onward writers decided to no longer rely on oral memory for the stories about Jesus, and so they began to write them down, thus we have our 4 canonized Gospels. Third, overlapping with the writings of the Gospels, we have the other letters in the New Testament canon, some attributed to Peter, John, James and the mystery author of Hebrews. At the same time in approximately the 90’s CE, other letters were written and said to be by Paul, though most scholars of the New Testament think that they are not actually by Paul. (Ex. Ephesians, the ‘Pastoral Epistles’, letters to Timothy and Titus.) Thus, there are three generations of writings in the New Testament: Paul, Gospels, Luke-Acts, Pseudo-Paul and the other letters. This is how the texts themselves came to be. However, the cannon was not prepared as a definitive list until the fourth century. It was Athanasius, writing in 367 , who first lists the books we now have in the New Testament. He also reports that there remain differences of opinion about a few marginal writings.

Consequently we have letters and Gospels that were written down not to be scripture as the authors themselves envisioned the scriptures, but letters to particular individuals and churches that carried authority. The Gospels are records of what Jesus taught and enacted, but even the Gospels themselves attest to their incomplete nature (Ex. John 21:25).

The advent of the cannon gave us a list of authoritative texts; however, it is treated as an authoritative list of texts which contain everything orthodox. It seems very possible that what the church has done with scripture since its canonization is not what those who assembled the list envisioned. The central issue of authority is how it is viable to speak and act in the name of God in this world. How can the institutions and the influence of the church claim to have authority or to be founded upon the divine appointment of Christ? What is the connection to human coercive power, which is used in the church and the state? How does the authority that comes from the scriptures transmit to the institutions of this world, both ecclesiastical and civil? These are critical questions that come to the forefront of the search for the Canon of Scripture. Scripture has been used to authorize and justify all manner of evil in this world. I do not believe the intentions for making the list had anything to do with lending legitimacy to any one interpretation of the texts, but to the authority of the texts themselves. The reason I make the connection between canonization and what people have done with scripture is that this list, though most likely not the intention, made the texts authoritative and thus gave credence to certain interpretations of the text as well.

The authority of scripture does not lie in the canonization of a particular text, but in the effect that text has upon humanity. If the text brings one to know God and to be known by God in a transformative way then the text bears authority. Letters from one Christian community to another can bear authority in matters of practice and action despite the fact that they are not canonized. Thus the authority of scripture does not and cannot lie in a particular text but only with God. This being said, interpreting scripture must be done in cautious communication with context, divine speech act, authorial intent, intended audiences and our own story. The story of Jesus.

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About JoshuaDbauIII

Joshua David Bau is a Doctor of Ministry Student in social and economic innovation at Bethel Seminary in collusion with Trans4m University in Geneva, Switzerland. He lives in St. Paul with his beautiful wife Gracie. He enjoys long walks on the street, painting and cooking.

  • Jon
    Others have already given wonderful and necessary historical responses.

    I think I generally agree with the spirit of this article, in its attempt to move away from viewing Scripture as magic guide full of inscrutable commandments, dictated by the very mouth of the Almighty; and moving toward a perspective that views Scripture as informing us and the community in the Story of God.

    While I'm Protestant, I've come to embrace the way the Orthodox view Scripture, as part of the Holy Tradition passed down to us. Scripture, no doubt, holds a place of primacy within that Tradition, but it is still Tradition.

    In my own studies of the history of the Church and the process of canonization what has consistently caught my attention is how it seems to have consistently been a sort of grass roots activity. What is and is not in the Canon seems to have far less to do with the votes of bishops (examine the various regional councils and the writings of the Fathers and it's clear there were disagreements on the order and exact enumeration of the Canon) and far more to do with common assent among the Faithful.

    The reason we ultimately have the Apocalypse of John and not of Peter (both were at one point regarded as important texts in use among the churches) isn't because Bishop So-and-So said X, but because the Apocalypse of John simply became more widely read and widely used in the churches.

    The Canon came about through liturgical use, the worship of the people ultimately paved the path toward a Canon of Scripture. As others have already said, there has never been an Ecumenical Council (unless we count Trent) which decided on this matter, nor did the Emperor have any say on the matter. Both before and after Constantine (and even Theodosius I) there was no universal consent (e.g. codices from the 5th century contain the Didache). A further example is that the Armenians didn't include St. John's Apocalypse until fairly late, and for a long time the Armenian Canon included the dubious Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.

    If we approach the Bible with the understanding that the Scriptures are an integral part of the Story of Faith that has and continues to inform us as the Church of Jesus Christ; that it's not about Divine Dictation, nor merely human arbitration, but rather the Story as embedded in text, liturgy, sacrament, community and action all coexisting in harmony under the move of the Spirit which ultimately grounds us as the people of faith--and furthermore grounded in the One Word that has become flesh for us in our Lord Jesus Christ. I think that's when we can really appreciate what Scripture offers us, the opportunity to wrestle, struggle, and participate in and with the living story of God as revealed to us in Jesus.

    Part of the problem, I think, is our tendency to dissect and compartmentalize all these various facets of the Christian Narrative; Scripture as X and then placing it in location Y, etc. Rather than approaching the Christian Narrative holistically, as many things existing in tandem, threads interwoven of which we are a part. We are not objective observers, but subjective participants; we are not standing outside the Scriptures and Tradition looking in, but parts of the larger whole struggling to live out the call of discipleship which Christ has called us to. It is this struggle to be the people of God living into the world the Mystery of Christ, I believe, that defines our Christian existence.

    For whatever it's worth, that's at least this reader's two cents.
  • Joshua D Bau III
    I enjoy the discussion that has unfolded around this issue. In regards to Dave's questions I would still contend that there were a plurality of voices at the council as the canon was produced, and not a single unified interpretation of the texts themselves was established. Of course a few fundamentals of the faith were 'set in stone', however, their we also faithful believers whom had different opinions than the ones finally agreed upon.

    Further, I also still contend that the authority of the texts, whatever that might mean, whether authority over or authority as the first word, lies primarily with God not humanity. This list of authoritative books was ushered forth by Constantine who needed to unify an empire, not primarily out of religious devotion but out of political necessity. On the other hand, No recognizable revelation exists apart from the life and witness of those who bear it. And thus the authority of the texts comes inextricably connected to the way it effects humanity and the practice thereof. "See how they love one another', this is where the approach to the revealed God begins. "If you devour one another, you do not have the love of God in you," etc. The life of the Christian is what gives testimony to God and to the meaning of that revelation. There is no absolute truth of Christ to which one can return washing their hands of what they themselves do in order to be justified in their theology or actions. 'If believers are not attempting to conform their lives to the truth of Christ, then there is no truth. This makes us see that in not being what Christ calls, we render all revelation false, illusory, ideological, imaginary, political, and nonsalvific. We are thus forced to be Christians or to recognize the falsity of what we believe. This is undeniable proof of the need for correct practice.' (See the subversion of Christianity, Jacques Ellul)

    Finally, I have come to find that the authority of scripture is important not because we can lord it over others in some ridiculous attempt to covert others to our own opinions. Rather it is so that we can ourselves become convinced of the call Christ has placed upon us. Regardless of our opinions about doctrines or dogmas it is imperative that we live in love as Christ loved and gave himself for the church. In other words, we must go and do also, as Bonhoeffer said, 'in so doing, we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God not taking seriously our own sufferings but those of God and the world.'

    Peace
    J
  • modern_ancient
    "I would still contend that there were a plurality of voices at the council as the canon was produced, and not a single unified interpretation of the texts themselves was established."

    Agreed.

    "This list of authoritative books was ushered forth by Constantine who needed to unify an empire, not primarily out of religious devotion but out of political necessity."

    Disagreed. Constantine did not usher in the list of authoritative books. The Council of Nicea did not definitively state what books where authoritative. In fact, no ecumenical (both east and west represented) authoritatively stated what books were included in the canon. This is the reason Luther felt he could dismiss certain books traditionally treated as apostolic. The Council of Trent responded (called by the Roman/Western Church in response to protestantism) by defining the approved books, and they included the apocrypha as well, which was different than traditionally done... hence the protestant rejection of those books as inspired. Constantine had no religious authority at the council. Of course the presence of the emperor was bound to have an influence, and his motivations for calling the council were political; however, that does not mean the actions of the council were politically motivated and to suggest so is to deny the faith of those present... many of whom had resisted the great persecution under Diocletian that ended only 12 years earlier. The discussion of texts as well as Christology andTrinity were religiously motivated. We have to understand that the authority of the bishops was first a religious issue and only began to include a political issue once the church gained political power... which did not occur under Constantine but Theodosius I.

    "I also still contend that the authority of the texts, whatever that might mean, whether authority over or authority as the first word, lies primarily with God not humanity."

    Disagreed (kind of). The power of the texts lies with God, not humanity. The authority of the texts is imparted to it by humans. Of course, the text itself gives those humans the power to give the authority to the texts in the first place (power of binding and loosing) so it is circular. Nevertheless, if different humans had been in charge, we might look to the Gospel of Thomas rather than the Gospel of Matthew as authoritative.

    "Finally, I have come to find that the authority of scripture is important not because we can lord it over others in some ridiculous attempt to covert others to our own opinions. Rather it is so that we can ourselves become convinced of the call Christ has placed upon us."

    Agreed. Wholeheartedly! It is not about who's in and who's out. It is about who is willing to let Christ impact their lives (whether they would attribute it to Jesus or not). Often it is the scriptures that impact people, but personal experience (mystical even) must not be discounted. The problem is that personal experience only had authority for the particular person whereas the texts are meant for humanity as a whole.

    "Regardless of our opinions about doctrines or dogmas it is imperative that we live in love as Christ loved and gave himself for the church. In other words, we must go and do also, as Bonhoeffer said, 'in so doing, we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God not taking seriously our own sufferings but those of God and the world.'"

    Agreed.
  • While I appreciate the sentiments in the article and the comments, I am frustrated by the historical inaccuracies regarding the process of forming the canon (proper spelling... it's not 'cannon' although some use it that way... lol).

    "I do not believe the intentions for making the list had anything to do with lending legitimacy to any one interpretation of the texts, but to the authority of the texts themselves."

    I disagree. Lending legitimacy to a singular interpretation was intended. We are all forgetting that there was not an ecumenical council that solidified the canon until the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century... and that council cannot be called 'ecumenical' since the eastern churches were not present - and none of the protestants were invited either ;-). They affirmed the traditional books believed to be authoritative; however, they included the apocryphal books such as Maccabees, Sirach, etc. These books had traditionally been thought of as useful, but not authoritative. The whole thing was done as part of the counter-reformation, hence in response to Luther and the rest.

    Athanasius's list (which is the first full list but hardly the first time those books were named authoritative... see Ireaneus' list of acceptable gospels in the mid-second century > Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) was only binding for the church's in North Africa since that was where he was archbishop. His purpose was two-fold: he only wanted writings that were 'known' to be apostolic in origin to be authoritative, and he wanted to establish the authority of the church to determine which writings were apostolic.

    However, this is where I must challenge Sara's statement, "The questions of heresy were entrenched in political power grabbing." Although power was a factor, we must not discount the actual faith of these people. Athanasius firmly believed that Christ was of the same substance (όμοουσία - homoousia) as opposed to Arius' claim that Christ was only of similar substance (όμοιουσία - homoiousia). Amazing what that one iota does to the divinity of Christ. Athanasius was not willing to budge that one iota because it would admit that Arius was correct and that "there was a time when Christ was not." This was not about power for Athanasius. In fact, he was exiled twice and repeatedly beaten for opposing the much more popular Arius. Yet, he endured because he believed in the divinity of Christ (the 'Trinity' had not been fully formed but this was leading to it). If it was about power, he would have ignored the theology and retained his bishopric. To simply assume the suppression of heretics was about power is narrow and does not do justice to the humanity of the people involved.

    I totally agree that the text must be read in its contextual origins. I further agree that we cannot approach the text without our own perceptions of the world, nor should we try. I disagree that the authority of a text comes from its effect on humanity. Its authority comes from humans themselves. Those who championed the books we consider the canon did it because they believed those were the books that contained the teaching of the apostles, to which Christians were supposed to devote themselves (see Acts 2). The Church taught that she alone held the deposit of faith and therefore was the only entity able to determine which books represented that faith. Yes, it was a display of power, but that display arose from religious ideals rather than political aspirations.
  • This is a challenging look at the text and its authority. I agree that "The authority of scripture does not lie in the canonization of a particular text, but in the effect that text has upon humanity.", but was this not one of the major criterion for canonisation in the first place?

    I agree that scripture has been used to legitimise all sorts of evils, and that this may be due to an uncritical look at the texts themselves, but is that an indictment of the canonisation process or our own failure to truly understand the Bible?

    I think it all comes down to what you said last, "interpreting scripture must be done in cautious communication with context, divine speech act, authorial intent, intended audiences and our own story. The story of Jesus."

    I know of a guy who had a little cross tattooed on the inside of his wrist. This way any time he was reading any portion of scripture he would be reminded that he had to interpret it through the cross (through the life, death, resurrection of Jesus). This is something that we often forget.

    Thanks for the reminder.
  • I'm ok with the influence of Greek thought. It is when the Greek way of thinking became privileged over other ways. In some ways, I still affirm what was done when the church "fathers" canonized Scripture and wrote the Nicene Creed. There was something important done there...but the fact that these things are sacrosanct--that we can't push back in the least and still be dubbed faithful and Orthodox--is part of the problem.

    So, that is a round about way of saying I mostly agree. I don't think these things should have been made "official" in that they became markers of who is "in" and who is "out." Rather, they should have been understood as declarations of what they deemed faithful. If they would have been able to do that without labeling Arius and Pelagius as "heretics" and then later seek to kill off their heretical kind, things would have been much, much better.
  • SaraHarding
    This stirs up lots of questions I've had for a long time. The canonization of Scripture went hand in hand with the canonization of doctrine during the time when both the Arians (or whatever group happened to be disagreeing with the majority) and the other Christians were vying for the support of the emperor Constantine. The questions of heresy were entrenched in political power grabbing. Could it be that the whole idea of canonizing, making something "official" is against the way Jesus? It seems like building the church in the image of the empires of this world and leads only to division, it lets one group of people condemn another group because they may take a slightly nuanced view from a slightly different perspective. Or even if they take an opposite view in one area but still love Jesus and seek to follow him, they are dubbed heretics. Perhaps Jesus never intended for his people to have such authority over one another- the canonization of texts, doctrine, clergy and saints seems to be simply another means to "lord it over", which is what Jesus told us not to do.

    I think perhaps one of heaviest influences at this time as well was Greek philosophy- the focus shifted from earlier Jewish influence in which the story of Jehovah and his people took precedence to one of deciding the "big questions" such as the nature of God, the person of Jesus, the will and nature of humans- things totally abstracted from the unfolding, fluid nature of the biblical narrative. The Reformation did nothing to change this, but merely took away the monopoly of the clergy to decide these things, and put them in the hands of the common people (who promptly created new types of clergy with their own monopolies).
  • Kudos for you, Joshua!!

    One year ago I wrote an article (the only one I've ever sbmitted to this site): http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/03/the-other...

    I tried to deal with some of what you say here, but it wasn't so complete. it was really interesting to read your article.
  • Emily M.
    Makes me wonder what people really mean with their statements and questions about inerrancy of scripture. Because if they mean that what God intended for these books was accomplished perfectly (without flaws or errors-inerrant) well then yes, yes it is inerrant. God accomplished through these books what God meant to, as, I believe, God always accomplishes what God means to. If God meant them to transform peoples lives, the NT books have certainly done that. If they were meant to inform us of Jesus and our connection to him, well, they seem to have done that as well. But when some ask questions and make statements about inerrancy, they really seem to be saying something about its ability to provide us with absolute certainty, and, like Joshua said in this post, justification. The inerrancy question all depends on what one believes these books were supposed to accomplish in the first place. If they were supposed to do what Joshua says here that they are, and they have done these things, then they are inerrant (?), and therefore they cannot be errant simply because they don't satisfy our requirements for absolute certainty. Uh?

    Simply put: the question of inerrancy just seems like the wrong question if by inerrancy we mean its ability to accomplish something that it may or may not have been meant to accomplish anyway. The right questions might be rather: what are these books for and have they been successful at this? And I think the author of this post did an excellent job getting at just that.
  • Joel Watson
    Amen! What a useful, helpful, succinct article to share with others you have given us. Thank you!

    I have often said that as the historian and story-teller of our family I have all the bills, receipts, personal letters, notes, form letters, stories, lies, of my family, but I did not want to lug all of that around as we moved. So I threw away all but the most wonderful, truthful, meaningful of all of it and now keep just that to pass-on (The Tradition)to the next generation to help tell the story of what they might really need to know where they came from. That gets them "there." Then it is up to them to use it for good or ill in their lives.

    That box of letters etc has now become a family treasure, it is the known box of "canonical" texts of our family. Real life comes from the flesh and blood family of which we are a living part, carrying the genes of those who have gone before, but free to be a "Watson."
    I guess Adam's last name was "Godson"?
blog comments powered by Disqus