Energion Direct

Blog

On Resurrection Life

by Harvey Brown

One week ago the western Church celebrated Easter—or if you prefer, Resurrection Sunday. The Eastern Church (Orthodox) will celebrate on May 1. Resurrection Sunday is preceded by six weeks of Lent, beginning on Ash Wednesday and ending on Maundy Thursday. Holy Week culminates in the greatest of all celebrations, Easter Sunday.[ene_ptp] Shortly after Marilyn and I were married (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), I heard a television preacher on a tirade against churches that recognized the season of Lent. “If you can show me a single place where Lent is mentioned in the Bible, I’ll give you $10,000!”
My quick search in the King James Bible (the most used English language Scripture of that day) led me to Jeremiah 15:10, part of which reads “… I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury….” That’s not just a single place where “lent” is mentioned. It’s a double mention in a single verse.
I didn’t bother to let the preacher know. I doubted he would stand by his challenge.
Lent really is a challenge, and a good one for us to recognize and stand by. Those six weeks before Easter can serve as a conscious reminder of Jesus’ call to take up our cross and follow him. If we are crucified with Christ, we will have died to ourselves and begun walking in Resurrection power as true Easter people.
For centuries much of the Church has honored the season of Lent as a time of reflection, denial of the flesh, and preparation of the human heart for the true celebration of the Resurrection. Early church father Irenaus of Lyons (c.130-c.200) wrote of such a season in the earliest days of the church, but back then it lasted only two or three days, not the 40 observed today.
In 325, the Council of Nicea discussed a 40-day Lenten season of fasting, but it’s unclear whether its original intent was just for new Christians preparing for Baptism. Nonetheless, it soon encompassed the whole Church.
It seems to me that an opportunity to grow in grace has been lost for many in the modern, growing, evangelical church who are disconnected from the Lenten traditions— especially since Lent is one of the oldest observations on the Christian calendar. Like all Christian holy days and holidays, it has changed over the years, but its purpose has always been the same.
For much of twenty-first century culture, these changes have resulted in the loss of the true significance of the season through which we have just come. In the same way as Christmas, Easter has been subsumed by symbols and non-religious traditions (think jolly old Saint Nick and the Easter Bunny… although I will gladly accept a 65% cacao dark chocolate candy rabbit). Regrettably, these secular holiday observances around Easter have obscured the Truth: Christ is risen. He is risen, indeed!
For over two centuries, the first song in the book of hymns of the Methodist Church has been “O for a thousand tongues to sing.” The words of the fourth stanza mirror the reality of Resurrection life for hymn writer Charles Wesley:
He breaks the power of canceled sin,
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the foulest clean,
His blood availed for me.
I have always thought of breaking the power of canceled sin in two ways. The first is in regard to my own sin. It is absolutely true that the cross of Christ settled once and for all everything that needed to be done to atone for our sins. Sin’s power was canceled at Calvary. But having the application of this forgiveness in my life—the breaking of the power of sin—only happened at the time that I accepted Christ. Once I knew Him, the sin canceled on Calvary could no longer accuse and condemn me. The power of sin was broken and no longer could hold me in bondage. I was born again, and released from the entombment of living death to become alive in Christ.
The second way to think about breaking the power of canceled sin is in breaking the power of others’ sins against me. I might remember the events and the specific occurrence of some offense, but that memory—and its power to control my thoughts and actions—no longer can exert any influence over my life. As Lewis Smedes says, “Forgiving does not erase the bitter past. A healed memory is not a deleted memory. Instead, forgiving what we cannot forget creates a new way to remember. We change the memory of our past into a hope for our future.”
We believers in the Risen Lord carry the DNA of the joyous reality of Resurrection. We have become year-long, day-by-day witnesses to Him who is Life. Hopefully (in its most literal sense) we are infectious carriers of the Marian message: “I have been to the tomb, and He is not there.” HALLELUJAH!

[slideshow_deploy id=’2795′]

April 3, 2016
Overcomers in Christ

by Iris Subel Davis

Hello Reader:

Prayers for you as you read today; may the Lord have brought you here for a special reason in your life.

Last month, we talked about negative experiences. This month’s entry will continue to discuss those in terms of what they can produce in our lives.

I found the picture above as I was preparing for an upcoming Google Hangouts session with Energion founders, Henry and Jody Neufeld. We will be discussing the topic of “Overcoming” on April 5th at 7pm CST.
It struck a chord with me because I have recently found out that my genealogical roots lead back into the royal families of England, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Some of my grandparents made some choices that altered the course of their lives and of countries. Along with that came a few exiles and public executions. In another branch of my family tree, there were broken families due to sworn allegiances to different countries. A common thread in all of the branches was a certain amount of shame as a result of the things they chose to do, whether right or wrong. This tendency was found from 800 A.D. right up to the 1900’s.
If you study genealogy, you know that a positive effect is learning what you are made of and how the past generations are still affecting you through your DNA. I have learned through my 20+ years of study how, I—an only child— fit into this world and how my genealogical past has affected my past, present, and future. Through study, I have learned how man has viewed my bloodline. Sometimes, that has been as great and important people. Other times, it has been as a simple, poor farmer. But, what I see about my family is more important. They have all been overcomers. Whether rich or poor, they all had something of great importance that had to be overcome—and the bloodline continued.
In reading about my generations, I am called to pray for those who came before me. He lays their burdens on my heart for a split second so that I can feel what they felt. Compassion comes in waves as I realize that though times were different, men were not. Their humanity is palpable as I read their stories and view pictures, paintings, and artist renditions of them and their circumstances. It is heart-breaking for a few moments.
Then, as I return to the present, I realize that He is revealing this to strengthen my vision of myself in spite of my past and circumstances. He is reminding me that I am someone special, to Him first and then to man. He needs to remind me of that often! It is necessary because there is a plan for my life that has yet to be fulfilled. I must walk with the One who has overcome the world in order to fulfill it. Each day that I take a step, or you take step, is one more day of that plan coming about. We are still here, so our purpose is still being fulfilled. It is promised, NO MATTER WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE TODAY. His word says that His plans are for good and will be completed. Say that out loud a few times!
Through the gift of His Holy Spirit, we can overcome whatever barriers we are experiencing through prayer. As He reveals, we can pray about things and help free ourselves from our past to be all that He desires us to be, and to do all that He needs us to do.

[slideshow_deploy id=’2787′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order.

April 2, 2016
Don't Take Jesus Seriously

by Chris Surber

The most dangerous thing you can ever do is take Jesus seriously. If you like your life the way it is, then don’t do it. If you are comfortable and want things to stay the same, take Jesus teaching as mere metaphors and nice ideas, but don’t ever, ever, take Him seriously.
Was it a figure of speech when Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything he owned, give it to the poor, and only then he could be His disciple? (Mark 10:21) I’ve taught it that way. I’ve heard others teach it that way. Truth is, we were both wrong. Jesus simply told that man, “Hey, sell your stuff, give it to the poor, and then you can be my disciple. Oh, and by the way, you’ll be trading wealth in this passing, fleeting world for wealth in Heaven that can never pass away.” He said what He said. That’s what He said and that’s all He said!
We cling so tightly to the stuff of this life that we seldom experience the rich, deeper beauty that is available to us when we let go of this world. We are in love with houses that constantly need maintenance, cars that break down, entertainment that only lasts a few minutes, and all the while Jesus is saying, “That stuff will never satisfy the inner cravings you have for meaning. I’m offering you a better way.”
My wife Christina recently came back from leading a week-long mission team to Haiti to work and support our friends and activities there with our ministry Supply and Multiply. She came back from giving her life away for a week refreshed. A very sweet older woman in the church I Pastor told me, “She just looks so beautiful after having come back from Haiti.” The truth is that she looks the same. The difference is that her countenance is different. Her soul is smiling through her eyes and face.
You see, what she and I have discovered is that the more we give away this world the more God gives us things that really matter. The less money we have the more joy we have because we’ve used God’s money for things of eternal value. The less time we have, the better we sleep because we’ve used our life for lasting Kingdom things.
When you share a cup of cold water with the least of these, you are in turn unleashing the cool refreshing spiritual water of the Holy Spirit in your own life. That’s not to say that we serve to be served. That is simply to say that when you participate in God’s plan for your life in this world you step into the stream of His pure love and gain things far greater than things.
In Matthew 10:39 Jesus says, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (ESV) Material stuff is only as valuable as its intended purpose. If I were drowning I’d not want a life preserver made of gold. Today, people are drowning in oceans of meandering meaningless connection to stuff that is dragging them down. The only way to float is to let go of those heavy earthen treasures so we can swim to shore grace.
If you love this world be careful taking Jesus too seriously. When you lose your life for His sake, His promise is that you’ll enter a life of sacrifice where His joy becomes your treasure.

[slideshow_deploy id=’2771′]
Click on a picture for more information or to order

April 1, 2016
What's Hampering Our Congregations?
By Steve Kindle

It’s almost impossible for a congregation to spiritually thrive in America. The American ethos is constructed to oppose it at almost every turn. According to the apostle Paul and the witness of the Book Acts, New Testament churches were egalitarian societies—societies whose chief concern was the well-being of the community. Everyone looked out for the other, and suffered and rejoiced together. Power was conceived as service, and wealth was God’s blessing for the community. Quoting Exodus, Paul declared, As it is written, ‘The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.’ In a later time he might have said, “All for one and one for all!”
[ene_ptp]But here in the West, we acknowledge the individual as the highest form of human achievement. The ego rules, self-esteem is our pursuit, self-aggrandizement is our religion, and “It’s all about me.” When we think about others, it’s always after we’ve satisfied ourselves. We’ve elevated John Wayne to national sainthood largely due to his personal motto that “I ask nothing of anyone, and give nothing.” No wonder Robert Ringer’s book, Looking Out for #1, became a New York Times #1 best seller. (His first book, also a best seller, was Winning Through Intimidation.) Independence is our goal and anything short of it spells failure—in our own eyes and others.
Capitalism has the status of a godsend where we are taught that competition achieves the best results. We honor, even glorify winners. We look down on, if not denigrate, losers. “May the best man win,” is not restricted to boxing matches; it’s a way of life. Gordon Gecko said it all when he declared, “Greed is good.” One’s value is measured in dollars, not in worthwhileness.
Now, plunk average Americans down in a pew and what do you get? To be realistic, their main concern is for themselves and their families. The extent of their involvement is limited to how it impacts their lives and the lives of their loved ones. And why not? This is how we are expected to behave; anything else would be un-American!
Certainly it is true that our congregations are filled with people who understand the gospel and lovingly serve their neighbors, who sacrifice their time and resources for the betterment of others. But we burn these wonderful people out because they are largely left to do the meaningful work of the church by themselves. Too many others are willing to be served while sitting on the sidelines, observing, appreciative, but idle.
What needs to happen for a congregation to truly deserve the name Christian is transformation. The ethos of the West needs to be exchanged for the ethos of the servant gospel. The fact that transformation so seldom happens—congregation-wide—is a testimony to its difficulty if not its impossibility.
What you are about to read will appear to be outrageously off the mark by some and blasphemous to others. The degree of hostility will be in direct proportion to how committed to a certain form of idolatry one is.
I was raised in a pro-family home. I heard over and over again from my parents, “The only people you can truly count on are family.” Over the years I have learned that families are as untrustworthy as even the highly touted biblical families. Our biblical heroes’ families were full of intrigue (Jacob and Rachael), unfaithfulness (David), fratricide (Cain), betrayal (Aaron), and treachery (Laban), just to mention a few. There is nothing inherently superior of family over any other institution. All human institutions are flawed to one degree or another.
Of course, the church is also a human institution; yet, it is also divine. Instituted by Jesus as the principle vehicle of the Kingdom, it is ruled over by him and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Members of the church of God have a “leg up” over any of its rivals, including family. Choosing family over church is selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. It is to commit idolatry.
But, can’t we have both? Some of Jesus’ statements are true on their face, especially this one: “You cannot serve two masters.” Making a successful life is, in part, prioritizing properly. Something must come first and all else subordinated to it. What we select as our first priority will determine how well our life goes, or not.
What, exactly, is this idolatry?
It is the placing of our family over every other commitment in our lives, especially the church.
We often hear people say, “My family comes first,” or “My priorities are God, family, church, nation, society,” or some other order after family. A high commitment to our families is honorable and certainly necessary. Nothing I write here should be in any way taken to denigrate the importance of family. But the family is only well-served when it is prioritized after the church.
How is it that the family becomes an idol?
One way to answer this is when the needs of the family conflict with the needs of the church—the family wins.
1. “We’d like to help out, Deacon, but Bobby has a game this Sunday and it starts at 10:00.”
2. “Well, pastor, with all the running around I have to do to get the kids to their lessons, scouts, athletics, and play practice, I’m too tired to be on that committee.”
3. “We’ll be fairly regular until summer. That’s when we’re spending weekends at the lake so the kids can enjoy the outdoors.”
4. “Confirmation? Saturday morning interferes with Beth’s basketball league. Sorry.”
5. “I won’t be able to continue as church moderator. I got a promotion and am being transferred to another state. We will miss this church, but I need to think of my family.”[i]
In each of these examples, the interests of the family take priority over the needs of the church. What are we teaching our children here? We are teaching them that the family is more important than the community of saints that cares for our bodies and souls.
“But,” you say, “my church is hardly the place I’d commit my well-being to.” Yes, poorly serving congregations are a fact. But why are they so? I believe it’s because we don’t teach and/or expect anything more from our families than what we get. After a few efforts to increase involvement, we fail and fall back on our ready-to-burn-out servants. This has to change. And it will only change when we recognize the problem. The status quo is killing congregations.
Here’s how to avoid the idolatry of family. Prioritize this way: Church, family, (the rest is up to you).
If God is indeed one’s highest priority, worshiping and serving God is how we live this out. For most Christians, this means we do so in the context of a congregation. Whereas many today think the church should be at the service of the family, in actuality, the family should be in the service of the church. The former is idolatry; the latter is discipleship. In this way we teach our children and order our own lives in such a way that seeking first the Kingdom is our highest priority.
The answer—form true community
Churches are, in part, human institutions, and suffer from human foibles. All the imperfections found in our biblical families are alive and well in the church. This can lead to the false assumption that putting the church as our first priority is misguided. I would argue that this is true because the church is not the first priority of its members. Because our commitments are to other things, we allow the church to wither. The answer is to create true community in a congregation where each member lives for the well-being of the others. This is how “the last shall become first and the first, last.” By serving one another, we are all served well.
How does your church measure up? Better still—how do you and your family measure up?
[i] This is a particularly difficult example. In this case the decision to move may very well be the right decision, but it too often is made without any consideration for the needs of the congregation. It is just assumed to be correct on its face.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]
March 31, 2016
Toward a Biblical Church

by Henry Neufeld, owner and publisher of Energion Publications

The word “biblical” is one of the most misused words in theological discussion, possibly even more abused than the word “church.” As a linguist I must note that calling a word “abused” is itself a mite linguistically abusive, as the meaning of words is determined by the way they’re used. What I mean by “abused” in this case, however, is that these words are used in such a way, or such a variety of ways, that it’s nearly impossible to determine their meaning.

So when I title this post “Toward a Biblical Church,” I’m intentionally being obscure. What on earth (or in heaven, in the sea, or under the sea), can I be talking about? Depending on where I go in scripture, and how I approach its interpretation, I can find (or produce, as if ex nihilo) very different views of the church.[ene_ptp] Cue expressions of horror.
If we can’t discover what the church is from scripture, or precisely how we should do church, then what good is any of it? Why read the scriptures if they do not inform us of what to do, particularly on such an important point? Yet we have honest and well-meaning people who differ profoundly on how we should be the church and how we should organize ourselves to be whatever we should be. When Allan Bevere, right here on the Energion Discussion Network, suggests we should perhaps be celebrating 50 days of Easter, Dave Black notes that his church doesn’t really do Lent at all. And they’re co-editors of the same book series at Energion, not to mention friends!
By now you’re all nodding or shrugging or getting annoyed at yet another post telling you that you can’t really know what the Bible says. What good is it in that case? But that’s not my point. In fact, I think we can get quite a lot from the Bible. It’s just that quite frequently the Bible doesn’t tell us what we want to know.
No, I’m not referring to the fact that the Bible (or the God of the Bible) will frequently challenge our comfortable assumptions and suggest that we ought to do things we’d really rather not. It does that from time to time. Rather, the Bible often doesn’t answer the questions we want answered.
In this case what many of us would like would be a divine guide to church structure. How should I structure my church so that it will fit God’s directions? Should we have bishops who appoint pastors or a congregational structure? Who should be in charge (at the human level) in a local church congregation? We take these questions to the Bible, and when it fails to answer them, we find a way to bend it to our will.
I’ve been writing a series of posts going through Dave Black’s book Seven Marks of a New Testament Church. You may be thinking I’d anathematize such a book based on the preceding paragraphs. No, I publish and personally recommend it. I am nearly done blogging through it, in fact. I’m including quotes from two other books, Thrive: Spiritual Habits of Transforming Congregations by Ruth Fletcher and Transforming Acts: Acts of the Apostles as a 21st Century Gospel by Bruce Epperly. Dave is a Southern Baptist. Ruth is a Disciples of Christ district superintendent. Bruce is a United Church of Christ pastor. All of them are writing about how we should do church. All of them consulted the Bible in the process. In addition we have Dave’s book The Jesus Paradigm, and forthcoming this month The Jesus Manifesto: A Participatory Study Guide to the Sermon on the Mount by David Moffett-Moore. Lots of people are looking at what it means to follow Jesus and to be the church.
Are there differences? Yes. Are there similarities? Yes, remarkable ones. I find it distressing how few people are likely to read all three, often because they presume theological differences will negate the value of one or the other book.
There are a number of perspectives on Jesus that we find in the Bible, though all lead to the idea that we should be following Jesus. Following Jesus has many details, as well, but also many similarities. The Bible never gets around to straightening out all of those possible understandings. The way the Bible is structured tends to prevent neatly ordered answers to all our questions.
And that in itself is something I think is one of the clear messages of scripture. We have many perspectives that are understood differently by many people. We moan and groan because the church isn’t unified enough, because we haven’t figured out the same answers to so many questions.
Perhaps it’s time we consider the possibility that the Bible is accomplishing exactly what God wants it to. We complain that His Word is coming back void, and not accomplishing the purpose for which God sent it out when really the problem is that it’s not accomplishing our purpose.
God may be just fine with lots of people doing their best to follow Jesus in their own, limited way, organizing themselves in very human fashion do try to do God-sized things, and learning new lessons about working together with every passing day. Perhaps what we need in order to be more in unity is not greater doctrinal or organizational likeness, but more Christlikeness in the way we respond to our differences.
God made people in amazing variety. Maybe he wanted his church to be that way too.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2364′]

March 30, 2016
Powers, Principalities, and Us

by Chris Eyre
Chris is a retired attorney from England and is the co-host of Energion’s Global Christian Perspectives with Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.

A post from Patheos recently talked about exorcism in the New Testament from the point of view that these days we consider those who would have once been called “possessed” to be suffering from mental illness. Meanwhile, I notice that the inimitable Richard Beck will soon be releasing his next book “Reviving Old Scratch” (by which I assume he means Satan).
These illustrate two attitudes I tend to see among Christians styling themselves “progressive” or “liberal”; the first is that references to demons or to Satan have to represent purely psychological matters. There’s certainly some merit in that. A psychologist friend of mine talks about going on retreat as “going to sit down and talk to her demons”. However, the second reflects something with a wider application (as ultimately only I can sit down and talk to my personal psychological demons) which I increasingly see in progressive or liberal writers, namely a willingness to take “principalities, powers and rulers” seriously.
In doing so, most are drawing on the work of Walter Wink in the remarkable “Powers” trilogy (or in his precis “The Powers that Be”). As Wink states, “Every business corporation, school, denomination, bureaucracy, sports team — indeed, social reality in all its forms — is a combination of both visible and invisible, outer and inner, physical and spiritual.” He most definitely includes in this all ideologies, political and economic, and of course, via “denomination”, religious ideologies. They can be named, unmasked and engaged (to use the titles of the three volumes of the trilogy). All, in Wink’s view, can be viewed as “fallen” entities, thus at the same time being demonic and angelic, and being capable of salvation.
But they are definitely something which can, in a sense, “possess” us, in that we uncritically devote ourselves to them, whether they be country, political party, economic viewpoint or merely our family. (And if you don’t see how that can be a demonic or at least fallen power, watch the Godfather trilogy sometime.)
Just as we all (I suspect) have our personal demons, we all (or at least a substantial majority of us) fall often into “possession” by one or more of these ideologies, or spirits; we can therefore, with caution, attempt to engage the spirits of those around us, individual or group, though in doing this it might be best if we have first engaged those possessing ourselves.
I say “with caution”, because we have just celebrated Easter, and Good Friday occurred first and foremost because Jesus engaged some of the Powers of his day, notably the imperial Roman Empire and the Temple insiders who allowed their own Power to ally itself to Rome. We may well find that in engaging some of the Powers of today, that we have, with Christ, picked up our cross.

March 29, 2016
Forty Days of Lent? What About the Fifty Days of Easter?

by Allan R. Bevere

One thing I have noticed as a Protestant whose tradition observes the forty days Lent: We don’t seem to be very good at observing the fifty days of the Easter season. Yes, we pull out all the stops in worship on Easter Sunday, but then we seem to immediately go back to business as usual. While we have special times and services during Lent, we fail to place such emphasis on the season of resurrection between Easter Sunday and Pentecost.

And yet, Easter is the most significant holiday of the Christian year. Though we celebrate Christmas as the central holiday as far as emphasis, it is not. Without Christ’s resurrection there is no Christian faith. If Jesus has not been raised, there are no Christmas celebrations to be had. The primary importance of Easter is revealed in the ordering of the Christian year. Unlike Christmas, Easter is a movable feast, which means that it does not fall on the same date every year; and it is the date of Easter each year that determines the entire liturgical calendar. (For how the date of Easter is calculated for Roman Catholics and most Protestants, see here.) Thus, while the church observes Advent and Christmas as the beginning of the liturgical year, it is Easter that is the theological culmination and beginning of the Christian year.

So the question is why many Protestants who observe Lent, do not observe, in similar fashion (in reference to importance), the full fifty days of the Easter season. Why is the greeting, “He is risen!” reserved only for Easter Sunday and not for the entire Eastertide? Why is resurrection absent from some Protestant preaching the Sunday following Easter Sunday?

On Ash Wednesday we are invited to observe a holy Lent for forty days. Why are we not similarly invited to observe a joyful Easter for fifty days following the morning the empty tomb is discovered?

I’m just wondering.

[slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

March 28, 2016
“On Warming Ourselves by the Fire”

A Good Friday Meditation
John 18:15-27

by Steve Kindle

It must have been a cold evening in Jerusalem the night Jesus was taken before “the powers that be” for interrogation and trial. The text lists three occurrences of people warming themselves by the fire. Two times Peter is singled out as among them.
But this is not a story of inclement weather and how to escape the chilling cold. It’s an escape story, all right, but an escape from the obligations of following Jesus.
All four of the Gospels record Peter’s record of denials, but only John adds the detail of warming by the fire, twice. Are we to think of this as adding atmosphere to the narrative, or providing an eye–witness report to the events? I think not. So, what is John up to here? Or Peter? Better yet, since Peter is but a stand-in for a certain kind of disciple, what are WE up to?
The first thing that strikes me is that Peter is following Jesus as he is led away to his execution, “from a distance.” Peter is keeping his distance. Peter is playing it safe. I kind of get the feeling here that we all have when we’re working with live electricity or drying off very sharp knives: better be very cautious, and not be too quick to move ahead.—Danger feels very close at hand.
Just like Peter in our text, when it comes time to “put up or shut up”, we, too often, choose to warm ourselves by the fire.
Warming ourselves by the fire means:

Surrounding ourselves with creature comforts rather than living simply that other may simply live

Sending checks, not investing our lives while letting others do the heavy lifting

When we reduce Christianity to a belief system of the head rather than a trust relationship from the heart

Our focus is on getting to heaven and not on relieving the hellishness found here on earth

When we warm ourselves by the fire, we remain at a safe distance from the total commitment that Jesus requires of those who would be his followers.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously said, “When Jesus calls a man, he bids him ‘Come and die!’” Today this is probably not a major motivation in being a Christian. Yet, you cannot come away from the Gospels with any other conclusion.
After 2000 years, Christianity has settled into a comfortableness in America, as we join Peter around the warming fire.
One of the most memorable stories in the Gospels is Peter’s “great confession” that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Having made this pronouncement, Jesus feels he can now deliver to Peter and the disciples the precise meaning of messiahship: “I must go to Jerusalem and die!”
Peter, acting on behalf of the disciples (and ourselves), is bewildered.
“We will never let that happen to you, Lord!”
Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that when Jesus “set his face toward Jerusalem,” he knew his life would soon be over.
Mark especially emphasizes that to be a follower of Jesus means we risk having the same fate as his. He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. (Mark 8:34-35)
We think of Good Friday as centering on Jesus death, but it really should be centered equally on our own.
As Paul put it: For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; ²⁰and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:19-21)
Now the man who wrote these words did not die in the physical sense. Not just then, anyway. No. He was speaking of a spiritual death. Death: a metaphor for spiritual transformation.
It is a dying of the self as the center of one’s concerns and preoccupations. It is a dying of the world that beckons us to exploit each other and live as enemies to one another. It is a dying of a life of meaninglessness and rising to a life of purpose.
Isn’t this dying, after all, what baptism is all about?
Paul wrote to the Roman congregation, Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4)
Our metaphorical deaths are the path to a new life—a life centered in God. It is a life of new priorities.
Jesus went to the cross because it was the inevitable outcome of one who lived his life, again to quote Bonhoeffer, “as a man for others.”
Because Jesus challenged the oppressive domination system of his day and taught his followers to do the same, he and they could expect the worst.
Jesus, Paul, Peter, James—all were executed at the hands of those who would rather be served than to serve, who would rather live for themselves than follow in the footsteps of “the man for others.”
These martyrs prayed for and worked for the day that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven.
If you don’t know how that can get you killed, you are warming yourself too often by the fire.
Therefore, the apostle Paul writes, May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal 6:14)
Just imagine a new advertising campaign for your church: “Our congregation helps crucify the world to you and you to the world.” If we step back from the warming fire, we just might see again a church that turned the world upside down!
Bonhoeffer’s last words may have been those he spoke to a Flossenberg inmate as he was on the way to the gallows. “This is the end—for me the beginning of life.”
The good news is that we don’t have to wait until our bodies perish for us to “go to heaven.” When we are transformed by dying to ourselves and raised to newness of life, eternal life begins now. Right now, right here.
So, on this Good Friday, when we remember how Jesus went resolutely to his death, we are afforded an opportunity to step back from the warming fire and rejoin Jesus on the way to Golgotha.
After all, this “is not the end, but the beginning of life.” AMEN
[slideshow_deploy id=’2356′]
Click on a book for more information or to order

March 25, 2016
Bible Reading in Postmodern Times

by Herold Weiss

[ene_ptp]Through the centuries millions of Christians have found strength, guidance and consolation in the pages of the Bible. Even to this day, every day Christians read their Bible to cement life in piety and service to others. The Bible has been used in very positive and effective ways for the betterment of the human family. The recognition of the blessed effects of Bible reading to the life of faith must be linked to the Bible’s witness to the faith of those who in ancient times saw themselves living in the world that Yahve had graciously made and given to them to prosper and be well. As the inheritors of their faith and the ways in which they gave their faith powerful expression, we benefit from their experiences of life with God and have models with which to give expression to our faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of Jesus Christ. This Christian reading of the Bible as a powerful agent for good is dependent on the basic Christian notion that the power at work in the reading is the power of the Holy Spirit. Ever since the Reformation of the sixteenth century Christians have recognized that it is only when the Spirit that inspired the writers of Scripture inspires also the readers of the Scriptures that the words of the Bible become the Word of God. Read without the power of the Spirit active in the reader, the words of the Bible are the words of a book written with ink on paper.
The Bible itself gives ample evidence of how different generations of believers in Yahve used the Scriptures. Jesus, Paul and the author of the gospel According to John, for example, already contravened what some of their contemporaries were making of the Scriptures. Using the Law to condemn Jesus as a Sabbath-breaker (Lk. 6:2) or a blasphemer (Mt. 9:3) was declared by Jesus a misuse of the Scriptures. In the gospel According to John Jesus condemns the Pharisees for thinking that in the Scriptures they would find “life.” He tells them that instead they should come to him as the source of life (Jn. 5: 39). Paul allows that in the books of Moses it is said that salvation depends on the keeping of the commandments, the statues, and the ordinances, in other words, the Law. Then he charges his fellow Jews with having failed to keep the Law and not having realized that salvation has always been dependent of faith (Rom. 9:30-33). These examples within the Bible tell us that not all that is in the Bible must be absolutized or dogmatized.
Through the years the Bible has been used to justify the enforcement of genocide. It has been used to defend the institutionalization of slavery. It has given impetus to compulsive, murderous proselytizing, military crusades, and pogroms. It is still being used to defend chauvinism and male supremacy. It has been the foundation on which nature has been seen as a source of wealth to be plundered. The abuses that have been perpetrated by those who claim to derive their authority from the Bible to do such things are by now denounced for what they are. By in large we have come to recognize that holy wars, genocide, pogroms, compulsive conversions, sexual denigrations, and the enforcement of taboos are not to be part of the life of faith, no matter what the Bible may say about them. Today, basically, the problem is not that, lamentably, the Bible has been used to propagate fear and hatred and even violence, even if that is undoubtedly true and a problem for those who wish to give the Bible its due. The big problem these days is the reactionary and imperialistic claiming that the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of history and science.
As long as history was a tool for the teaching of morals, the narratives of the Bible could serve also this basic purpose. If the Bible was used to provide lessons for living in the present or to preserve the tradition with which to shape and control the future, it was being used as all history was; all history was written for what could be argued with it. In that environment the Bible fitted very well with the conservative elements of the cultures in which it was being used. The problem arose when history adopted a critical attitude toward the sources with which to construct lessons from the past or, even more radically, its aim became the reconstruction of the past as it actually had been. The pioneer of this new understanding of the purpose of history was Leopold von Ranke who in his first book, a history of the German peoples (1824), declared specifically that his aim was not to provide moral lessons or reasons for national pride but to show how things actually happened (wie es eigentlich gewesen). At first, the book from this young unknown did not receive wide support from people who expected from history moral and ethnic uplifting, or arguments against political enemies. Eventually, however, von Ranke became professor of history at the University of Berlin, the mentor of the next generation of historians and the father of academic history.
This means that today one may read the Bible in basically two ways. One may read it under the power of the Holy Spirit as a document written by those who under inspiration wished to give expression to their faith for the benefit of those who wished to energize their faith in God and also give it expression. As such it is a powerful agent for the maintaining of the life of faith and the shelter of all the witnesses to faith in God. It may also be read under the guidance of the scientific evaluation of documents from the past in order to reconstruct, as far as possible, how things actually were. Read this way readers gain a deeper understanding of the circumstances and the concerns that motivated the writers and, on the basis of this, they may explain and evaluate the message the writers were delivering to their respective audiences. These two ways of reading the Bible are not in opposition; they are complementary. Learning what was actually happening at the writing of the Bible and seeing how the different authors expressed their faith in the terms available to them at the time tell us that we must also under the power of the Holy Spirit find the way in which to give living expression to our faith in the terms given to us by our times. This means that a historical understanding of the contents of the Bible may legitimately inform the way in which we live and express our faith.
The Bible is to be read not only to expand one’s spiritual horizon. It must be read also to explore the various intellectual horizons within which its different authors lived. This allows us to see that one of the central insights of postmodernity is already at work in the Bible. When I was a Seminary student in the world of modernity, back in 1956-59, it was taken for granted that there was only one correct interpretation of a biblical text. The task confronting the Bible student was to come up with the one true meaning of the text. Once the correct meaning had been attained one could confidently dismiss all other interpretations as erroneous. In this way one was quite sure of the superiority of a modern interpretation of a text. This was particularly the case when compared with the medieval view that meanings could be extracted from a text by applying different methods. Today semiotics has shown that texts that are worth reading are worth re-reading because they are “open.” More than one way of reading them are quite proper. While recognizing that some interpretations are better than others, thereby rejecting a relativism that gives to all readings equal value, it is possible to claim that a text may legitimately have several levels of meaning; therefore, sectarian claims to exclusivism and elitism are disallowed. This insight into the nature of the biblical text has been a major factor in the enlightening dialogue prevalent among different denominations, and is a most welcome development within Christianity. It could become a reality, however, only when the postmodern horizon made it possible .
There is ample evidence that the Bible has been used to assert contradictory doctrines. Christian believers have used the Bible to teach that God is a god of vengeance, and a God of love. They have said that it teaches the immortality of the soul that Plato introduced into Western thought from its origins in Eastern religions, that it teaches that death is analogous to sleep, and that when a person dies it is like the pouring of water on the ground bringing about its dissolution. They have taught that God is unmovable and unchangeable, and that he is easily persuaded to change his mind. They have taught that he is One, and that the Godhead consists of three Gods. They have taught that God the Son is a created being, and that he is co-eternal with God the Father. They have taught that Jesus is a human being like all others, that he is the incarnation of a divine being, and that he is the incarnation of God the Son. They have taught that at his incarnation the Son took the human nature of Adam before the Fall, that he took the human nature of Adam after the Fall, and that he took the human nature of his mother which had the inherited propensities to sin accumulated during “four thousand” years of human sinning. They have taught that human beings are endowed by God with free will, and that God has absolute control of everything that happens on earth. The have taught that God is omnipotent, and that the human world is no longer under God’s direct control; it is under the dominion of Satan, “the god of this world.” They have taught that humans are totally depraved, rotten beings incapable of doing the good, and that they are quite capable of being held accountable for their behavior since they do have a good, reasonable mind.
The reason for these contradictory teachings is that they may be supported by biblical texts. This means that the problem with reading the Bible is not only with the interpretations of the Bible, even if they also have a great deal to do with the problem faced by anyone wishing to take the Bible seriously. In antiquity Christians already realized that readers of the Bible confronted texts that were problematic. Thinking that what the Bible said was important, they devised ways by which to extract meaning from it. The text could be read for its plain meaning; it could be read typologically as the more explicit expression of something that had occurred in the past, and, therefore, the past had anticipate; it could be read symbolically, pointing to another reality; it could be read allegorically as providing the key for philosophical teachings, or it could be read anagogically, opening up the imagination to visions of what is the case in the heavenly realm.
Eventually, Catholic interpreters proposed that the Bible is to be read for its sensus plenior. Search for the “fuller sense” involves taking into account the whole of the context, even the whole of a book, in light of further developments in the understanding of revelation. Sometimes the Latin phrase is said to mean the “deeper sense.” This, however, opens the door for personal agendas to color the interpretation, and allows the disassociation of the text from its historical context all together. Some argue that the sensus plenior requires to have Jesus as the criterion by which to judge all biblical texts. Such a proposal leaves the matter at a totally subjective level since every individual has a very personal view of who Jesus was and how he would react to what Biblical texts say. For me, there is no shortcut to the message of the Bible for those who are actively engaged in the intellectual currents of the twenty first century. They must become aware of the intellectual horizons of the authors of the Bible.
Some argue that methods for the interpretation of texts are not applicable to the Bible because the Bible is the Word of God. This means that God is its author, and God must not be subjected to human ways of reading. Those who take this point of view, however, describe the authority and inspiration of the Bible with abstract concepts that are only tangentially related to the contents of the Bible. Besides, they cannot account for the whole Bible. They are forced to select a few texts here and there as authoritative within a vacuum. In a way, their claims are at the core of the problem faced by those who wish to be faithful to the whole Bible. Rather than to acknowledge that the Spirit that inspired the authors must also inspire the readers for the words of the Bible to be the Word of God, they assert that the Bible as printed is the Word of God. In their view, God is its author, period. The problem with this view of the matter is that the Bible itself does not support the notion that God is its author. Those who actually wrote words on leather or papyrus could not have been just taking dictation. The biblical text reveals the imprints of their styles, their vocabulary, their theological agendas and their cultures.
The authors of the Bible do not share a “biblical cosmology” which must be accepted as a divine piece of information. Which of the different cosmologies found in the Bible is the “divine” one? Genesis 1 describes a totally omnipotent God who remains without creation, and describes creation as composed of a firmament that holds water on top of it, the earth beneath, and the waters under the earth. Genesis 2 has God coming to a desert land and making things with his hands by trial and error. Paul works with the cosmology of the chain of being, with different kinds of bodies and heavenly spheres stacked hierarchically. He claims to have ascended to the third heaven and been in Paradise, and to have passed a full day and night in “the depths.” The gospel According to John also describes the cosmos in terms of the realms above and the realms below, but absolutely rejects the notion that anyone ever ascended to the realms above except the One Who Descended from above, thus denying Paul’s claim. The author of the letter To the Hebrews argues that this world is a phenomenological manifestation of the hypostatic world. While this world is unstable and capable of being shaken to pieces, the hypostatic world is permanent, solid and unshakable. Eventually the unmovable world will replace the movable one. These cosmologies are all found in the Bible. They witness to the cultural dependence of their authors. A valid theory of biblical inspiration cannot be based on abstract concepts concocted for the purpose. It must take the evidence of the Bible into account. If I give credit and thank God for the healing of one of my loved relatives from cancer, I cannot ignore the fact that modern medicine had just developed a new form of chemotherapy and that a smart doctor who had been involved in the clinical trials of that therapy happens to be practicing in my town. While giving full credit to God for the power to give life, I must also take serious notice of the activity of the human agents who brought my loved one back to health.
The Bible contains many things that are disturbing. In it there is a prohibition barring homosexuals to enter the temple (Deut. 23; 17), and a commandment to put to death anyone engaging in homosexual activity (Lev. 20:10). Anyone found working on the Sabbath should also be put to death (Ex. 31:15). God expect parents to sacrifice on the altar their first born (Ex. 22:28). Well, maybe not, apparently the Lord changed his mind about this (Mic. 6:7). Besides, there is an alternative. Rather than offering their firstborn on the altar, parents could redeem their firstborn by paying the stipulated price at the temple (Ex. 34:20). This alternative, of course, only came into the picture once the people were no longer nomads in the land but urban dwellers with a temple in Jerusalem. Later, just before the Exile, Jeremiah insisted that God had never commanded such a law. In fact, such a thought had never even entered God’s heart (Jer. 19: 5-6). His contemporary, Ezekiel, acknowledged that such a law was in the books, but judged it to be one of God’s “bad statutes” (Ez. 20:25-26). Were all these different understandings of what to do with the first born written by God? The only way to understand them is by recognizing that at different times the will of God was understood differently by people who had faith in God and were inspired. The fact of the matter is that God did not and does not reveal information to those God inspires. God gives them life and lets them understand that God’s being is power to live.
It is obvious that the authors of the Bible did not take dictation. They did not set on paper the view from the top. They were participants in a faith journey with the Lord, and they expressed their faith with the language, the mores and the cosmological horizon of their times. Later Bible writers, on the basis of their life of faith in their own cultures and also under inspiration, judged previous expressions of the will of God inadequate. Reading the Bible to reconstruct what happened according to the standards of our own culture and under the power of the Holy Spirit is just as legitimate as what authors of the Bible did when they evaluated the way in which previous authors had presented the will of God. Using the Bible to evaluate our own culture according to what the reading of faith under the power of the Holy Spirit tells us to be the will of God for today is also quite legitimate and most necessary. In fact, it is what the apostle Paul told his converts that they should do. He did not think that the will of God had been expressed for all time and was set on stone. He wrote: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). This is one of the most extraordinary texts in the whole Bible. Here Paul gives to the human mind that has been transformed from above by the Holy Spirit to decide what is the will of God. The translation reads “be transformed by the renewal,” but it is well known that the Greek word here translated “again” (= “re” in renewal) also means “from above,” as used in Jesus’ pun in his conversation with Nicodemus (Jn. 3:3). Thus the making new of the mind is to be done “from above,” that is, by the Holy Spirit. Once this has taken place the believer is fully capacitated to “prove,” to evaluate, to asses, to determine the will of God. What is good before God, what is acceptable to God, what is considered perfect by God is not to be found written somewhere. It is to be determine by believers whose minds have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the context of their times. That is what Paul told his converts.
My argument today is that the two ways of reading the Bible I presented above are complementary and necessary. It is not at all the case that faithful Bible readers must disconnect themselves from the present world. Not at all. We read the Bible in postmodern times in order to be both informed citizens of a world in desperate need of guidance and faithful believers in the God who created the world and loves us in ways we cannot imagine. From the Bible we gain both understanding of the ways in which God and his people lived together in the past and of the ways in which we must be faithful witnesses of the will of God for our times. In the same way in which Ezekiel came to see that the command to sacrifice the first born was a “bad statute,” we may come to understand that to exclude the homosexual from the temple, or to abuse him physically is not considered “good” and “acceptable” by God, and that insisting that God created the universe and all that is in it in six days is not the “perfect” way to understand the matter. The mind that is inspired “from above” does not become irrational. The Holy Spirit does not veto the normal work of a reasonable mind. The Spirit enlightens and expands the mind to understand the will of God in postmodern times.
This does not mean that understanding God’s will in terms that are meaningful today requires becoming “conformed” by contemporary culture. That is actually what Paul warned against. There is plenty to “prove” wrong in contemporary culture. Its worship of money, celebrity and violence is clearly not according to God’s will, even though the Old Testament, particularly the Wisdom books, praises the wealthy and apocalypticism is a purveyor of violence. The god of the Psalmist who asked God to smash the children of his enemies on the rocks (Ps. 137:9) is not my God. Apparently this Psalmist thought his god would do that for him. I think that my God would not do that for anybody. Neither is my God the apocalyptic god of vengeance who burns people in a lake of fire. My mind made new by the Holy Spirit tells me that the wills of the gods of that Psalmist and John the Theologian are not “good and acceptable and perfect.” When we read the Bible faithfully in postmodern times we must read it with a mind made new that is alive to both the work of the Spirit and the experience of living. Then we will continue to receive a blessing by learning from the Bible what is good and acceptable and perfect. The truth of the Bible is confirmed by the manner of life it produces.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2675′]

March 25, 2016
The Canon of Scripture and the Question of Inspiration

by Edward W. H. Vick

The Word ‘Canon’
[ene_ptp]First, a brief comment about the word canon. This word, kanon in Greek, had a variety of meanings, and was rather loosely used in early times. It meant a carpenter’s measure or rule (like a row of numbers on a measure), or a list. A canon was an ideal standard, something which served as a norm. So canonical people or books were those whose names were found on a list. A collection of writings is called a ‘canon,’ for example at Alexandria, because it sets a standard and can serve as a model.
The term canon, when used of ‘Scripture,’ has three distinct meanings. All of them point to a collection of writings taken to have authority, to be unique. The word canon can be used of the books first, as they set the standard; secondly, as they conform to a standard; and thirdly, as they are found on a list.
Canonical books are recognized books. Recognition involves decision. Somebody at a particular place and time recognized such books. Somebody eventually drew up a list and, in so doing, expressed a judgment about the books on it and those not on it. To produce such a selection required a principle of selection. It takes time, a considerable amount of time, for such a selection to be completed, several centuries.
Christians inherited a doctrine of inspiration from the Jews. The doctrine of inspiration was later made into a very elaborate scheme and led to no little confusion. One thing is noteworthy. The term itself is not in evidence in the earliest judgments of the church about Scripture. Only much later did it become in some circles the standard, the orthodox, way of speaking of the authority of the Bible. But from the beginning it was not so. And with good reason. You can, as did the early church, affirm the primary importance of Scripture without elaborating a theory of inspiration.
Would it be true to say that the books considered canonical had qualities which the doctrine of inspiration was later to emphasize? Are we able to say: because we recognize the books are inspired, we endorse their decision? But the fact is that it is just as difficult to determine whether a book is inspired as it is to say whether it is canonical We have already seen that the word ‘canonical’ has at least three meanings, namely (1.) functioning in the community in a special way; (2.) apostolic, that is traceable to an apostle or a close associate of one; and (3.) being included on a list.
We shall discover that the term inspiration is also ambiguous and that we can give no simple answer to questions we have here raised. We do not simplify the problem by introducing a theory of inspiration to establish canonicity.
One procedure would be to accept the decision about the canon and starting there proceed to discuss inspiration? Rather one might start rather earlier, look at the practice of the church, consider the books available and ask whether, for whatever reasons, the books they chose were wisely chosen. One might then relate the reasons for accepting the books to the discussion of inspiration.
To conclude this section: (1) We cannot determine whether a book is canonical by finding out whether that book is inspired. (2) We cannot infer from how the book got written whether or not it has authority in the community. These are two different questions and we must not confuse them. (3) We cannot, without further ado, i.e. without further thought and investigation, simply accept the claim that the book or the writer is inspired or has authority, even if the book makes the claim for itself. (4) We must appeal to facts external to the writing to determine whether that writing has authority. (5) It is not sufficient to appeal to the fact that a book is included in a list of accepted books. Canonicity, in that sense, does not establish authority. We must ask whether we can agree with the reasons why the list was set-up in the first instance in the way it was, and whether it has continuing relevance. (6) We must inquire whether the list they made of acceptable books still has contemporary relevance. To do that we shall set the books in the context in which they are used. For that is where the issue of their inspiration and their authority is properly discussed. We may not find these terms to be the most satisfactory.
To establish the status of a book we must consider the community in which the book is read and accepted, both its past — Who made the decision and why? — and the present — Who confirms the decision once made, and how? Does present attitude agree with past decision? Is there reason to reconsider, to re-affirm, or to revise older decisions once made? Then we may come to a reasonable view of the matter.
We conclude that the question of canonicity is the question of the book’s use and influence in the community. That is determined by empirical considerations, e.g. by asking, Does it have an influence which is unique? Books which have current influence have authority. Thus a certain question becomes central. What influence does the book have in the Christian community? Answer that and you have a dynamic rather than a formal answer to the question of Scripture. We must be put practice into theory and then test the theory. We are then ready to address one further question: What sort of authority do such writings have?
(7) A Paradox The contemporary church has inherited both the books and the decisions about which books are to be taken as primary and which as secondary. It inherits the decision and affirms it. But it does not examine all the books. It affirms the books it reads, and those it finds have been accepted. But it may not be aware of what other books there were, and are, to choose from. It does not say to itself something like: ‘Here are the books produced during the first two Christian centuries. Let us examine them, and choose the ones we consider appropriate and profitable to set aside for special use in the church. Something similar, mutatis mutandis, might be said about the Hebrew books.
We should ask: Why does a particular church Community not do that? We can obtain and examine all these writings without difficulty. But most Christians have never read any of them. Why are we content to inherit and endorse a decision we did not make about which are the right books when we have not considered such books as, for example, actually were included in only some of the lists which were drawn up? Why do we continue to retain some books which were seriously questioned and whose place in the canon i.e. on the list was contested? Is it strictly honest to endorse such books as we are somewhat familiar with and exclude other books we have never read? Are we really prepared to leave that decision to someone else, without giving ourselves convincing reasons for endorsing that decision?
Of course Christians are influenced by decisions of the past in the way in which we use the writings. That these writings are handed down to us as those chosen by some historical decision means that we do not, and will not, read other important writings, or consider them in the same way as we consider these.
So Christians continue to use certain books and not others. That is the important fact, however it has been influenced by decisions of the past.
This means that most Christians, most of the time, simply endorse the tradition. They simply accept what has been handed down to them from the past. Even those who most enthusiastically affirm the principle of ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ depend upon the tradition about the canon so that they can identify what the limits of the Bible are. This is usually done without much concern or criticism. As a result we have a strange paradox: to affirm both ‘The Bible and the Bible only,’ and to affirm as well the traditional identification of the Bible, limiting it to those books which the tradition has affirmed. It is particularly ironical that most Protestants assert that the Bible stands alone, while relying upon tradition to identify which are the books which constitute the Bible, tradition which existed long before the divide between Protestant and Catholic took place.
So when the church acknowledges Scripture is this anything other than a formal recognition of sixty-six books?
The fact is that the effective canon is not identical with the sixty-six books which the church formally defines as its official canon. The church does not use all portions of the canon consistently. ‘The church’ refers to the congregation, the churchman, the preacher, the theologian, the individual believer. Each of these is a particular entity. By ‘use’ we refer to doctrinal definition, proclamation, devotional reading, liturgical practice and have in mind the distinctions we made at the very beginning of this book.
It is essential that we now make a clear distinction. It is that between books formally and traditionally defined as canonical and books or portions of books actually, repeatedly and consistently used in the various activities of the church. The effective canon of the church consists of those books and parts of books the church actually uses. These are a limited selection and are drawn from the whole which the church formally calls its canon. The official canon is the list of accepted books. Some will be used frequently, some seldom, some not at all. The ‘canon’ sets the outer limit. Within that limit there is selection. This means that there are inner limits. In the performance of its varied activities the church appeals to certain portions of the writings whose outer limits are defined by the official canon. The books whose limits are formally defined and the books actually used repeatedly and consistently are not identical.
We might use technical language to make this important distinction.16 The community might say, We are not bound to an historical decision, a contingent decision about the canon, for the manner in which we use these books. The church identifies herself by specifying which books she uses. That means that the definition of what is the canon is made with and at the same time as an identification of the church itself. The church identifies itself by specifying as canonical those writings it uses in its varied activities.
A further observation is important. We have in what precedes been speaking of the canonical books as formally defined, in contrast to books or portions of books actually used regularly and seriously. But, of course, books outside of the formally defined canon can, and
often do, exercise as much or even greater influence on Christian under-standing, worship and practice than writings from the canon of Scripture. What writing is effectively authoritative within the church will be assessed in proportion to the influence it exercises and the acknowledgment it receives. The writings of a teacher, a charismatic figure, a churchman, a theologian may, in a given community, have more effective influence than whole sections of the formal canon. That is an important fact of church life which the Protestant must take into account in understanding what the principle of sola scriptura can mean. The activity of the Holy Spirit, so the church claims, manifests itself in many ways in the church. Some of them may not be directly related to the actual words of formally canonical Scripture.
It looks as though the Protestant principle of sola scriptura might be compromised on two levels:(1) because of an acceptance of a definition of the limits of Scripture handed down by tradition, i.e. of an endorsement of the traditional pronouncements about the canon; and (2) because a non-Scriptural office or person or tradition may, in any given community, wield more effective influence and be referred to more consistently than the writings of the canonical Scripture, whole portions of which may be quietly left aside.
So a doctrine of Scripture cannot be isolated from the life and practice of the community which uses Scripture. Otherwise the doctrine becomes formal and the church’s claim concerning Scripture does not then correspond to its actual practice.
(8) Theological Significance of these Considerations
We conclude with a brief suggestion about the theological significance of these considerations.
(1) That the books of Scripture have a history means that human elements play an essential part from the very beginning and throughout the whole process of the book’s production. It is necessary to say this only because (at times) there has been a misleading emphasis in the opposite direction, to play down, even to suppress, any reference to the human. We may then have to insist that the books are human productions because so much emphasis has often been laid on the divine.
(2) It is then a matter of saying how to speak well of God’s revelation in and through the books whose history we can trace. Christians affirm that these are the books through which God reveals himself, as they recount how God revealed himself in the past. This book is the written Word of God because of its intrinsic relationship with God’s revelation to the church.
(3) Authority means influence. These books have influence of a particular kind. Christians accept them for having had and for continuing to have such influence. We must then, in giving a theological account of Scripture in relation to the life of the church, carefully state what this influence is. This will require clear, unprejudiced thinking.
(4) The context for discussion of the Bible is where the Bible is spoken of as Holy Scripture, where it is received as having a special status, where, if it happens, God reveals himself. The authority of the Bible is not a property which inheres in it and which can be demonstrated, for example by showing that it is inspired, but rather connotes a relation in which divine and human elements both play an important role. Hence our insistence that we observe what actually happens with regard to the Bible in the practice of the church.
We cannot do justice to the status of the Bible without dealing with the community, the church, in which the Bible is used, and in which judgments about the Bible are made and passed on, sometimes formally and sometimes informally. Only by speaking in relational terms shall we be able to do justice to the problem of the authority of the Bible.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]
Click on a book cover to get more information on that book.

March 24, 2016

Your cart (items: 0)

Products in cart
Product	Details	Total
	Available on backorder Previous price: Discounted price:	Save