Thinking About Canon (First Update)

Thinking about Canon (Part One) was posted less than 24 hours ago, and has already generated, by my incomplete count, more than 50 instances of online commentary and offline correspondence.

I’m particularly thankful for comments and citation by Doug Chaplin, Chris Heard, Jim West, Kevin Edgecomb, and Iyov.  Lengthy offline correspondence with Kevin and Tim Bulkeley has also been going on, the results of which will soon hit the fan.

(ed.: interesting choice of metaphor. - I didn’t get much sleep last night.)

 I think the topic of canon deserves to be widely debated among bloggers. The folks of Evangelical Text Criticism, a very cool blog, are thinking about doing so, but have yet to join the fray. I hope they do soon.

 Most people come at the subject matter from a defensive or apologetic point of view. I am more interested in understanding how canons function in real life. May the discussion continue.

Comments

[Scot]

Most people come at the subject matter from a defensive or apologetic point of view. I am more interested in understanding how canons function in real life.

As if whatever their conviction is is somehow unrelated to 'real life.' I, for example, accept the canon as canon on the basis of the Church's (not unanimous but consistent) testimony. And I would defend that conviction by means of an appeal to the functioning authority of that witness. What is the difference between that and 'real life'?

[John Hobbins]

I accept the canon as canon too. The question then is, do its contents rule my life and thought, and that of the church as a whole?

I would not be quick to answer yes. A passage in Paul points out, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15).

My own life, more than I would wish, and the life of the church, more than I would wish, are characterized by this contradiction. Real-life, I submit, is shot through with contradiction. One of my goals in the essay, then, is to examine the ways the canon functions in real life as so defined, and call a spade a spade.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

In my own tradition, the Eastern Orthodox, the Bible is recognized as the primary expression of Tradition, the foundation, but not the sole source of the living faith. As we say, the Church wrote the Bible, the Bible didn't create the Church. That chain of people that has been the Church existed before the Bible was written, and do live and will live long after any and all books have turned to dust. Good words, eh? I certainly can't claim any corner on saintliness, however, or that all we Orthodox are so great at application of the lessons in this fount of Tradition, the Bible. But there are some who have been. And they've helped us come to the particular canon that we currently possess, one that includes both introductory materials and more advanced materials, both milk and meat. Just as the Church, the Body of Christ, itself is full of people in varying stages of saintliness, so the written icon of the Word of God, the Bible, includes in it works of varying theological depth, appropriate to those who may need to swim in the shallower pools before diving deeper. And, honestly, don't we all? Anyhow, that's another perspective.