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

[Melanie Stephan]

In 2007, God sent this message: We each die in succession, then we are born on the same day.

[Melanie Stephan]

The second coming of God is at hand. Take heed and make note. God has returned. He has come to dismantel a broken down split-up disfunctional Church. He is going to strike out the words of the Romans and rebuild the Church in his own words. Start by opening your bible to the title page that reads "New Testament". Strike out the words New Testament and retitle this page "Roman Mythology". You have now completed the first step in rebuilding Gods Church. Don't toss your bible out, Gods word is mixed in with the word of man. God is going to tell you what is his and what belongs to the Romans.

[Melanie]

Correction: to the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. This is what it means: Birth is Last and Birth is First. Sorry for the mistake, it took me some time to realize what God was telling me in symbols. I had a Revelation in clarity yesterday.

[Melanie Stephan]

God sees everything, doesn't he?

This is one small piece of proof that God talked to me:

Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about “Who Killed JFK”. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is “Fritters”. I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put “who Killed JFK” on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can’t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of J D Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter. Now I unjumble the letters of Ritter to get TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R’s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800’s JD Tippit’s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit.
Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia, there I find; "Some thought that J D stood for "Jefferson Davis" however JD does not stand for anything". That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S , do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?

Next what does "FRITTERS" mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters are a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to. These meanings tell a story.

JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry’s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!

If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Only God knows who the killer is. This is proof that Christ talked to me and that is the reason he told me "Who killed JFK". It is proof. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 years since the shooting.

I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.

Before I forget. Gods messages usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for “Fence Shooter”.

Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.

Now the Dallas Police Departtment obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. It could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the DAllas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too.

Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don’t know it. God let me know it was him.

Now I just made solving the case of “Who shot JFK?”, look easy. I also gave you proof here. Did you see it? You ask where’s the proof. The proof is that it is impossible for anyone to repeat what I just did above. I mean try it. And I do that over and over again in all of God’s messages.
See if you can make up a word that is a fried food (like fritters). Unjumble the letters to reveal the name of the killer (Tippit). Then divide the word Tippit into words that describe what happened. Tip- means that JD Tippit was paid for the job and the presidency was over turned. Pit - means that he went to Hell for what he did. Pit means the worst Hell.

See if you can prove me wrong. Show me how easy it is to make up a name like “Fritters” that solves the crime. This clue is ingenious. God came up with the name “FRITTERS”. God is a genius, not me. I am only the messenger.

Then the two remaining letters F. S. stands for Fence Shooter. It's INGENIUS!

Then on top of that it just so happens that there are two Tippit’s working in the Dallas Police Department in 1963. Fritters (plural) means we have more than one Fritter going in the deep fryer . The other shooter is Gayle M. Tippit. He goes to Hell too. Now I did some research on Gayle M Tippit. There is very little information on him unlike JD Tippit. In my search I found two Gayle Tippit’s still in Dallas. One died in 1967 and the other is married and still lives in Texas. So the other conspirator could still be alive and has managed to avoid detection.

This is where it gets intesting. Does Gayle M. Tippit come forward and ask God to forgive him? I think he also has to ask the American people to forgive him for his part in the murder of the president or he gets the worst Hell just like JD did. God told me that waiting until the 11th hour is too late. God is forgiving, but you can’t wait until your on your death bed to ask to be forgiven.

Now if Gayle M. Tippit wants to save himself from the deep fryer. (This could be a long fry, not a quick dip.) He has to come forward and ask to be forgiven. He still gets death or Hell but it won’t be the worst Hell. Just like the worst death is being crucified.

Gods Messenger, Melanie

[Melanie Stephen]

You have to remember that Canon was made up by the Romans. The New Testament was written in Greek. Which is also the language of the Romans. The old Testament was written in Hebrew, which is the language of the Jews. Now if John wrote Revelation it would have been writen in Hebrew not Greek.

Now I don't want any one to feel stupid but John would not have writen revelation in Greek. He would have writen Revelation in his own language. The Romans were his enemy. John hated the Romans and anything that had to to with the Romans including their language. So did Peter and all of the disciples.

Now if you don't believe that look up the meaning of the word Je-sus. It is two greek words. The letter J does not exist in Hebrew. Is is not a tranlated word either. Before the 1600's that name Je-sus was Ie-sus. Good example of tinkering. Look up the Greek word "sus'. The name Je-sus means "Pigman". That is what the Romans thought of the Jews and their religion. That is not the worst of it either "sus" has a secondary meaning. It means "cunt". That is your religion. The Romans are making fun of you. They are also making fun of the Jewish religion. You have been decieved. Now don't take my word for it. Go and look it up for youself.

Now the Romans believed they were superior to other races. That means they felt that they were superior to you. They fooled you didn't they. Yet God is real. God is very real. God is going to take revenge on the Romans. So they are not that smart after all.

The Romans are smarter than you but not as smart as God. You have all been decieved.

Gods Messenger, Melaine