The Canon & Tradition

Please Note: Unless otherwise noted, quotes in the following post are taken from Beyond Foundationalism by Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke.  This book is also the basis for the historical summary that follows.

In its 2,000 years of existence the church has had various twists and turns in its view of the way that tradition interacts with scripture.  Let me provide a basic historical outline (purposely simplified):

1. Patristic Era: Tradition and scripture work together.  Some argue for extra-scriptural revelation (i.e. Augustine) some argue against (i.e. Irenaeus).
2. Medieval Era: Some hold that the canon is sufficient but requires tradition to interpret.  Others put more of an emphasis on the equal authority of tradition, alongside the canon.  (When I say "the canon," this is not to be confused with what is called "canon law," which would fall under the category of tradition.)
3. Reformation Era: By now a third view arises in which some thinkers believe the church can receive new revelation.  The Reformers react against the general tenor of the Roman Catholic position with their sola scriptura agenda.  The Anabaptists reject tradition altogether.  The Enlightenment project causes a strong and lasting suspicion of tradition and authority in everybody.
4. Modern Era: The Liberal movement seeks a "reformulation or revision of Christian doctrine consonant with modern sensibilities..." (105)  Whereas the Reformers mostly wanted to recapture the original traditional views of the church, liberals viewed both tradition and scripture as an "exclusive critical norm" with suspicion. (106)  Meanwhile, Evangelical Protestants were rejecting tradition in their own fashion.  They emphasized personal (read subjective) interpretation, maintaining "fundamentals" of the faith, and what Richard Lints calls "ahistorical devotional piety." (Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology, 92 as quoted in Grenz, 109)  That last phrase refers to the way evangelicals have tended to disregard most historical theology.
5. Vatican II: Into this mix comes a "reformation" of Catholic thought, which (among other things) basically says that we cannot hope to understand the revealed word without the tradition of the Church. This is a significant change from the dichotomous views of tradition and scripture that had developed previously within the Roman Catholic tradition.

Some other time, I would like to devote some thought to some of the defenses the Reformers made for their sola scriptura view, which still differs from Roman Catholicism, post-Vatican II.  For now, I want to keep the focus on the canonization of scripture.  Still interested?

Stan Grenz & John Franke go to some length to provide a "nonfoundational conception of scripture and tradition." (105)  They seem to frown upon what Richard Lints has called "anti-traditional traditionalism."  We cannot completely discount all tradition.  The authors argue that "apart from the Christian community the Christian Bible would not exist." (115)  In other words, the canon is itself a product of tradition.  They go on to claim that "the direction of the Spirit permeated the entire process [of inspiration] that climaxed in the coming together of the canon..." (116)

That is certainly not a new concept to me, but I respond with an inquiry: Where was the Spirit when the Church was adding all that tradition we have largely rejected?  That is to say, isn't that a tad bit subjective?  How do we know for sure what the Holy Spirit has permeated or not permeated?

My basic idea is that yes, it is subjective.  And yes, I'm okay with that.  It would be impossible to prove, empirically speaking, whether or not the Holy Spirit is involved with this or that action.  We can only work together, as the entire, historical community of Christ-followers, in trying to discern what God is saying and how he is trying to convey his message.  Having said that, it seems that the entire witness of the church is telling me that the canon is closed.  The Bible seems to be God's way of providing a concrete standard by which, with the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we can hope to discern God's voice.

I think parts of our community have gone drastically wrong when they say things like this:

"We believe the Bible is the only absolute authority for faith and life, is the exclusive revelation of God to man, and speaks to every need of life." (The Doctrinal Statement of the church I work for.)

I say let the canon be the standard.  But let the entire flow of historical Christian thought be our guide in interpreting that standard.  And let the continuous revelation of God help us to contextualize that standard into our present situation.  This is where I part company with conservatives.  We may not need to add books to the Bible, but we simply cannot expect the written word of God, alone, to speak to "every need of life."  We haven't even touched on the subject of culture, which adds a whole other facet to this discussion.  Is it not possible that God has spoken (and will speak) through other, non-hebraic and non-hellenistic communities?  Is it not possible that such revelation, when put together with scripture and tradition, will provide us with a more fully developed concept of how God wants us to exist as followers of Christ?

Maybe this is all semantics.  You tell me.  I just think that we will miss out on so much of what God has to say if we rigidly insist that the Bible is the only source of truth.  Congratulations to anyone who actually read this whole post!

Comments

[dave paisley]

Well I read it and didn't think it was overly long or boring ;)

I think your wrap up is pretty much in line with my views and the views of my church as a whole (broadly speaking...) I will often take a more liberal perspective in discussions just to (encourage debate)/(wind people up) but I like where you ended up.

This part: "(The Doctrinal Statement of the church I work for.)"

...obviously makes life difficult for you right now... And isn't that one of the main issues that's driving the emergent conversation for post-evangelicals anyway?

As always Bill, a well thought out post. You'll do great in seminary (although Fuller is obviously theologically conservative I believe it's more open than say, Bob Jones...)

Then again, Fort Knox is more open than BJU ;)

[Bill]

lol...I know Fuller would be considered conservative, although some around these parts might say it has "gone liberal." C'est la vie!

The good thing is they have some profs really exploring this whole culture thing (and arts thing). That's why I'm excited to go.

Thanks for the comments, Dave.

[Sivin Kit]

yesterday, I heard a professor of religion/philosophy from USA name both Grenz, Franke and Ketteson (?) as being too friendly with postmodernism. He sounded especially passionate about that postmodernism is rotten at its core and there's nothing we can gain from it. Hmmm ...

I left "feeling" the heat that's brewing on your side of the earth. Probably more in my blog on MOnday. Now, it's figuring how to teach my congregation how to sing the U2 "40" before and after my interactive sermon :-)

[Bob]

Bill,

I like Stan Grenz's approach a lot. And yours.

At the end of the blog entry, you said "Maybe this is all semantics. You tell me." Yes, it is. I've taught advanced college-level courses on hermeneutics (which always includes a section on the authority of the Bible).

Most evangelicals (I say "evangelicals" not "fundamentalists"), believe that the Bible is indeed the "absolute authority for faith and life" and "speaks to every need of life" but would not add the "the exclusive revelation of God to man." That statement would rule out "general revelation" in the creation and the continued work of the Spirit to speak to God's people through the history of the Church (tradition) and to God's People today.

So, the doctrine of biblical authority should not be threatened by further enlightenment from God's Spirit. In fact, biblical authority is the standard by which we can discern whether we are currently hearing God's Spirit of hearing the words of the Evil One.

I'm glad you are going to go to Fuller--they do an excellent job of balancing all this out!

[Bill]

My specific experience has been that if I suggest we might learn something new from another culture, for example a Buddhist oriented one, people get very upset. My stance is that God is at work everywhere--all truth is God's truth. Is there false information embedded in other cultures and religions? Yes. But the same could be said of the Christian "religion." That is to say that other influences besides the Holy Spirit will always creep in.

While we may consider the Bible to be our "norming norm," as Grenz puts it, I think it's quite possible that we can gain new insight by studying what God has revealed through other sources.

My qualm with the phrase "speaks to every need of life" is that there are things we face that the writers of scripture simply didn't face. While we might try to relate PRINCIPLES from scripture, I think we need more than the Bible in order to do the hard work of living out the gospel in our own context. What say you?

[Aaron O.]

Bill,
I'm really enjoying your posts about the canon. I continue to wrestle with similar questions.

I like what Paul says about scripture in II Timothy 3:16-17. He says that it is primarily two things: God-breathed (inspired) and useful. Not absolute. Not authoritative. Not exclusive. Not inerrant. All lovely modern words that the church you work for and the church I attend cherish very much. But I digress.

I think a God-breathed, useful canon is ideal. God-breathed scriptures will adequately communicate what God has chosen to reveal. Useful scriptures will provide us with the tools to be "equipped for every good work." There is no need for scriptures to be the absolute authority, the exclusive revelation, or speak to every need of life. Whew!

[Bill]

Months ago I pondered the difference between scripure being inerrant and not errant. Believe it or not, there's a difference. Check out my post here.

[Melanie Stephan]

Hi. This is an important message, please read and pass it along. God has made contact. The message is about Revelation. The message is from God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost respectively. It was sent in the Spring of 2006. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First as written in Revelation. The message is this: In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death. What does this mean? In other words this means Birth is Last and Last is Birth. To understand this don't think from point A to point B. Think of this as a continous circle of life. Birth, Life, Death, Birth. God also said that Judgment will be before Birth in Heaven. AS birth on Earth is painful so will birth in Heaven. It is possible that this message was delivered by one of God's Angels in the Spring of 2006. Yes, God has made contact and he sent a messenger. Spread this message along, just like a chain letter. Tell two people. Melanie Stephan

[Melanie Stephan]

God has also revealed the date of Judgement. February 22, but not the year.

[Bill]

I'm so glad you told us about this, Melanie! Did God say anything about what he was going to do about the big spam problem?

[TomTom]

Yes, God said all He intends to say about it through His revelation to Monty Python.

[Melanie Stephan]

Jesus said nothing about Spam, Monty Python, Gays, Lesbians, Abortion or Women teaching in the Church. Gods big issue is the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. Now Jesus loves us but God is mad as Hell right now. He could be mad enough to press the big Red Button (starting the launch). I don't know. What he did talk about is also written in Revelation. So your guess is as good as mine. Have a happy Eternity. Melanie Stephan

[clencidaynunc]

One man's brain plus one other will produce one half as many ideas as one
man would have produced alone. These two plus two more will produce half
again as many ideas. These four plus four more begin to represent a
creative meeting, and the ratio changes to one quarter as many ...
-- Anthony Chevins

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://xanga.com/jessiehickmanvo