| |
Following is a brief description of my view of the
Bible as canon. It was originally written as part of an
interchange between myself (GC), Warren Lewis (wwl), and Richard Davies
(greyfox), all faculty members at Martin University, Indianapolis,
IN.
-----------------------------
Three general descriptions of
the Bible as "canon" have been offered:
1. >>G.C.
>>My own definition of the Bible as canon is this:
"Canon" is an act of faith by the church in search of God.
>>
2. >>wwl:
>>And my definition of the Bible as canon is this:
>>"Canon" is a political act of faithlessness in the
Holy Spirit by church officials in search of control of the hearts and
minds of fellow Christians.
>
3. >greyfox: The canon is an axiomatic system that provides a common
framework for discussion and discernment.
____________________________
My Reply,
In my humble opinion, these
views are not mutually exclusive. The first two speak primarily of
motives (i.e. what produced canon?), the last primarily of function (ie.,
what is a canon supposed to do?). My view (gdc) and that of wwl seem to
contradict, but not if one realizes that no process of this magnitude is
made up of singular motives. The two views offer a realistic balance of
the process, and even they are insufficient to cover everything. Surely,
there were and are other motives as well, both good and not so good.
wwl is not a happy canon-er. But is it possible not to have a
"canon" of some sort? Theoretically, yes; but practically, no.
For although I agree that "canon" is not a *required* step
(i.e., God didn't demand it or ordain it, as far as I can tell), I also
accept that the processes of canon are inevitable and natural.
It would help us to realize what "canon" is in essence: It is
tradition held high. "Canon" doesn't start in the second
century CE, or the 3rd or 4th centuries CE. "Canon" starts
when a story that someone tells becomes Sacred to a community of people,
and it is retold, written down, and then retold and interpreted. We see
this when Isaiah quotes Exodus and reinterprets the "water in the
desert" theme. We see it in Luke 4 when Jesus quotes Isaiah and
reinterprets the texts before him in light of his own situation.
Whenever Sacred Story is called upon to bring renewed life to an
individual or community of people, we see (or perhaps engage in) the
canonical process.
So, when Sacred Story becomes Sacred Text (i.e., when it gets written
down) it is just one more result of the canonical process. wwl is
exactly right to emphasize the continuity of tradition and scripture.
For scripture is tradition held high. But then to deny the importance of
the notion of canon itself is to deny the processes of tradition.
If one chooses to believe that "the biblical canon" is a pure
result of God's initiative, there is a lot left to explain. (Blind faith
doesn't help anybody!) But if one chooses to deny the notion of canon
altogether, there is just as much to explain. (Throwing the baby out with
the bathwater doesn't do much for us either.)
I choose this: the canonical process is a natural part of tradition,
scripture, and the uses of scripture. And it is ongoing. Personally, I
view "biblical canon" (more or less) in a seven-tiered
universe of awareness about canons (please note that this is my own
concoction; it may or may not reflect your experience at all):
A Seven-Tiered Universe of Canon
First, I accept the
protestant canon I have received since childhood as a special collection
of documents which is meaningful for the people with whom I interact
religiously. Even if I have different opinions from others about the
exact nature of this collection of writings, and how to interpret/apply
it, I can still accept, respect, and engage in lively interchange under
this umbrella as "the Bible." For me, it is a special
collection for helping me make sense of my world as I seek God and the
Spirit of God.
Second, I acknowledge the other Christian and Jewish canons of
the world (more than three dozen of them) as the result of the faith and
struggles of millions of people who have gone before me and who now live
around me. The Apocrypha contains invaluable information and helps me to
think not only about my biblical canon, but about my world. The Gospel
of Thomas does not have to be in the Protestant or Catholic canons for
me to read, teach from, and use it. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag
Hammadi Scrolls (found in Africa) are also worth my reading for
informational, historical, and spiritual. I can read them, learn from
them, teach them, and be inspired by them.
Third, I then acknowledge that there are countless other Jewish
and Christian documents -- ancient and more recent -- which are based
upon, react to, or are influence by more widely accepted texts, though
not generally a part of any group's "canon of scripture." I
can learn from these. They are literally countless! Philo, Josephus, and
books commonly called the "Pseudepigrapha" are all religious
books based on biblical texts from which a GREAT deal can be learned
about religious experience. The Mishna and Talmud are full of insight.
And this doesn't even begin to touch the hem of the garment. The
writings of Augustine, the "church fathers", Marcion(!), St.
Thomas Aquinas -- and so much more. These are not simply "history
books," and anyone who thinks they are doesn't know what he or she
is talking about.
Fourth, I hold the study of ancient Greek and Hebrew as a
spiritual discipline, not merely as an academic exercise. The study of
these languages is a vital means of getting at the many ancient texts
mentioned in items 1-3. How can we think ourselves to be
"followers" of books we can't even read? Greek and Hebrew may
not be essential for "going to heaven," but in my world, I am
not spiritually allowed to be satisfied with a mere second-hand acquaintance
of what I have included in my world of canonical experience (i.e., the
Bible and related texts, items 1-3 above).
Fifth, although I am not an active participant in other
religions, I extend my respect to the various religions of the world and
to their canons of "scripture" knowing that they also explore
and experience spirituality in ways I have not and do not. These are
special collections (i.e., canons) to which I pay honor.
Sixth, I look to the various *academic* disciplines around me --
English literature, history, science, philosophy, etc. -- realizing that
they all have varying degrees of "canons" from which they
operate. And they all are on a "spiritual quest" of sorts,
seeking answers to life's mysteries.
Seventh, I keep in mind that ANY canon can be abused by anyone or
any group of people. A canon of documents is a collection (i.e., an
"axiomatic system" per greyfox) designed to help people make
sense out of their world. But just because people abuse canons, does not
make the canon itself of no value.
Summary
And so you have my seven-tiered
world of canon.
In all of this, I seek to be a well rounded person, learning and growing
from all sources, but knowing full well that I am not "well
rounded" because I can't even keep up with my five kids, let alone
all the knowledge and insight there is in the world! "Canons"
give us a place to start and focus.
The danger, I think, is when we begin to think that OUR canon is the one
and only canon. For those who believe in God, faith demands a broader
vision.
With respect to all the students in this class,
and to my colleagues,
Gary D. Collier
|
|