Comments on: How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/ Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:12:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Incoming... http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-327 Incoming... Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:00:49 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-327 yeah sorry I was harkening back to my Sesame Street days "which of these things just doesn't belong..." yeah sorry I was harkening back to my Sesame Street days “which of these things just doesn’t belong…”

]]> By: Jeffrey http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-326 Jeffrey Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:36:02 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-326 "Assisi and bonhoeffer and Dobson"<br/><br/>Wow, not sure if I have ever read these three names in the same sentence ever before! “Assisi and bonhoeffer and Dobson”

Wow, not sure if I have ever read these three names in the same sentence ever before!

]]> By: Incoming... http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-325 Incoming... Sun, 29 Jan 2006 05:24:09 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-325 the cultic diversion essentially choose to stop the -ask God -ask the people -ask God -ask people cycle. That's the cycle I think Jerry is trying to advocate. It is plainly obvious that even in evangelical circles we have often gotten it wrong on interpretation. I would want to be very careful not to claim that the reason cults evolve is primarily due to misinterpretation of Scripture. Rather it could be clearly established that their interpretation of Scripture followed other agendas inherent to their personalities and desires. To that end i still maintain that cults cannot be used as legitimate evidence of the failure of interpretation in an open cannon. It is appropriate to disqualify ourselves inadequate spiritual maturity. Which i would suggest leads us to the proper posture of humility needed to approach interpretation in the first place. And if you are disqualified then it is reasonable to assume that we all are - even those founding fathers who solidified the current cannon we now hold. So in essence if we follow your arguement of disqualification we should naturally call our own cannon into question. <br/>My intention is not to suggest that certain parts of the Bible should NOT be there any more. My only contention is that perhaps we can contemplate how other writings might be given similar status as those of Scripture. And I would also suggest that we already are doing exactly that with Assisi and bonhoeffer and Dobson. I think there could be something very positive about conveneing a council that could evaluate the possible authority of certain other writings for the present and future church.<br/>Sorry if I was too confrontive... the cultic diversion essentially choose to stop the -ask God -ask the people -ask God -ask people cycle. That’s the cycle I think Jerry is trying to advocate. It is plainly obvious that even in evangelical circles we have often gotten it wrong on interpretation. I would want to be very careful not to claim that the reason cults evolve is primarily due to misinterpretation of Scripture. Rather it could be clearly established that their interpretation of Scripture followed other agendas inherent to their personalities and desires. To that end i still maintain that cults cannot be used as legitimate evidence of the failure of interpretation in an open cannon. It is appropriate to disqualify ourselves inadequate spiritual maturity. Which i would suggest leads us to the proper posture of humility needed to approach interpretation in the first place. And if you are disqualified then it is reasonable to assume that we all are - even those founding fathers who solidified the current cannon we now hold. So in essence if we follow your arguement of disqualification we should naturally call our own cannon into question.
My intention is not to suggest that certain parts of the Bible should NOT be there any more. My only contention is that perhaps we can contemplate how other writings might be given similar status as those of Scripture. And I would also suggest that we already are doing exactly that with Assisi and bonhoeffer and Dobson. I think there could be something very positive about conveneing a council that could evaluate the possible authority of certain other writings for the present and future church.
Sorry if I was too confrontive…

]]> By: Ryan Dueck http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-324 Ryan Dueck Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:14:59 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-324 Dale, you said "I am well aware of my own failings and those of fellow humans in ‘getting’ right the interpretation of God’s revelation to humanity. I find it absurd that we could want to use cultic diversions from orthodoxy to point this out."<br/><br/>Let me ask you this Dale: Do you think that any of the charismatic leaders of the 19th century 'Restoration Movements' sat down one day and said, "maybe I'll start a cult today..." I don't think so. I suspect that these were well-intentioned, albeit misguided people, who were firmly convinced, based on their interpretation of the Bible and the freedom with which it could be added to, that God could/should/did speak to them in ways similar to the way he did during the formative years of the early church.<br/><br/>"Just because egotistical maniacs (cults) have twisted Scripture to their benefit in no way logically tells us that Spirit sensitive interpretation within the accountability of a humble community doesn’t or can’t work."<br/><br/>I'm simply pushing things to their logical conclusions here Dale. Far from being fringe 'outfits' based on lunatic eccentrics, I'm talking about some fairly prominent (at least numerically)groups here. JW's and Seventh-Day Adventists make up an enormous population worldwide, and especially on the African continent - far more populous than our little Mennonite clan, or any number of other Protestant denominations. On what basis would you say that their claims are wrong? Not enough consensus? Well their message certainly has found a home hasn't it? They've found consensus SOMEWHERE. Not the RIGHT consensus? Well, based on what? Who are we to say, after all? How do you refute groups like this without appealing to the manner in which orthodox Christians have traditionally interpreted the Bible? <br/><br/>You accused me of fear-mongering, but this isn't fear mongering at all - I'm just looking around the world at established groups (the word 'cult' is a matter of perspective isn't it? Many of them consider Catholics and mainline Protestants to be apostates) who have felt free to tinker with the canon, and claim authoritative, unique revelation from the same God that we worship. We hardly even bother taking their claims seriously, but based on this discussion, I wonder what our basis for dismissing them so quickly is. Dale, you said “I am well aware of my own failings and those of fellow humans in ‘getting’ right the interpretation of God’s revelation to humanity. I find it absurd that we could want to use cultic diversions from orthodoxy to point this out.”

Let me ask you this Dale: Do you think that any of the charismatic leaders of the 19th century ‘Restoration Movements’ sat down one day and said, “maybe I’ll start a cult today…” I don’t think so. I suspect that these were well-intentioned, albeit misguided people, who were firmly convinced, based on their interpretation of the Bible and the freedom with which it could be added to, that God could/should/did speak to them in ways similar to the way he did during the formative years of the early church.

“Just because egotistical maniacs (cults) have twisted Scripture to their benefit in no way logically tells us that Spirit sensitive interpretation within the accountability of a humble community doesn’t or can’t work.”

I’m simply pushing things to their logical conclusions here Dale. Far from being fringe ‘outfits’ based on lunatic eccentrics, I’m talking about some fairly prominent (at least numerically)groups here. JW’s and Seventh-Day Adventists make up an enormous population worldwide, and especially on the African continent - far more populous than our little Mennonite clan, or any number of other Protestant denominations. On what basis would you say that their claims are wrong? Not enough consensus? Well their message certainly has found a home hasn’t it? They’ve found consensus SOMEWHERE. Not the RIGHT consensus? Well, based on what? Who are we to say, after all? How do you refute groups like this without appealing to the manner in which orthodox Christians have traditionally interpreted the Bible?

You accused me of fear-mongering, but this isn’t fear mongering at all - I’m just looking around the world at established groups (the word ‘cult’ is a matter of perspective isn’t it? Many of them consider Catholics and mainline Protestants to be apostates) who have felt free to tinker with the canon, and claim authoritative, unique revelation from the same God that we worship. We hardly even bother taking their claims seriously, but based on this discussion, I wonder what our basis for dismissing them so quickly is.

]]> By: Incoming... http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-322 Incoming... Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:49:30 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-322 Several things disturb me about where and how this discussion has evolved.<br/>1. Some points of view have been deemed to be anti-authoritarian based on a consideration of a more open cannon. I’m just not sure what rational/logical process allows us to make that kind of leap. I suppose if we were to argue that the complete sum of God’s revelation to humanity is captured in the Bible in it’s current form – then perhaps I could entertain such a notion. I doubt that any of us would dare to espouse such a position. I would agree that culturally we are moving to less authority. This is not good. An open cannon does not necessarily make us less authoritarian. What it may do is (I feel) challenge what has become a typically co-dependant relationship we have had with God where he allows us to rationally figure him out and he gets to dictate our every move. (You want an example? How about every gr. 12 student who wanders into my office at some point and says, “What is God’s will for my life?”)<br/>2. I am well aware of my own failings and those of fellow humans in ‘getting’ right the interpretation of God’s revelation to humanity. I find it absurd that we could want to use cultic diversions from orthodoxy to point this out. Pure fear mongering I suspect! Because if you read Jerry’s word’s carefully, orthodoxy uses an overarching sense of humility with one’s own interpretation of Scripture or any other revelation. Just because egotistical maniacs (cults) have twisted Scripture to their benefit in no way logically tells us that Spirit sensitive interpretation within the accountability of a humble community doesn’t or can’t work. But bless your souls for trying to say that. Do wanna wrestle?<br/>It is completely possible for me to say that the Bible is a central core to Christian faith and that it may not be finished. I like to see the logical process (in equation form) that allows us to make the kind of statements we have here. <br/>I just sense too much fear around this whole subject. and not eh kind of fear that respects God - more than kind of fear that senses a loss of control on traditonal positions for their own sake and the sake of our vocational remuneration... Several things disturb me about where and how this discussion has evolved.
1. Some points of view have been deemed to be anti-authoritarian based on a consideration of a more open cannon. I’m just not sure what rational/logical process allows us to make that kind of leap. I suppose if we were to argue that the complete sum of God’s revelation to humanity is captured in the Bible in it’s current form – then perhaps I could entertain such a notion. I doubt that any of us would dare to espouse such a position. I would agree that culturally we are moving to less authority. This is not good. An open cannon does not necessarily make us less authoritarian. What it may do is (I feel) challenge what has become a typically co-dependant relationship we have had with God where he allows us to rationally figure him out and he gets to dictate our every move. (You want an example? How about every gr. 12 student who wanders into my office at some point and says, “What is God’s will for my life?”)
2. I am well aware of my own failings and those of fellow humans in ‘getting’ right the interpretation of God’s revelation to humanity. I find it absurd that we could want to use cultic diversions from orthodoxy to point this out. Pure fear mongering I suspect! Because if you read Jerry’s word’s carefully, orthodoxy uses an overarching sense of humility with one’s own interpretation of Scripture or any other revelation. Just because egotistical maniacs (cults) have twisted Scripture to their benefit in no way logically tells us that Spirit sensitive interpretation within the accountability of a humble community doesn’t or can’t work. But bless your souls for trying to say that. Do wanna wrestle?
It is completely possible for me to say that the Bible is a central core to Christian faith and that it may not be finished. I like to see the logical process (in equation form) that allows us to make the kind of statements we have here.
I just sense too much fear around this whole subject. and not eh kind of fear that respects God - more than kind of fear that senses a loss of control on traditonal positions for their own sake and the sake of our vocational remuneration…

]]> By: Ryan Dueck http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-321 Ryan Dueck Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:40:18 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-321 Jerry, you said "Then don't take up the task. Let God. Use your God-given mind and ask God what he likes. Find out what others think God likes. Compare opinions within the church, and again, ask what God likes." I appreciate your point. It is important to genuinely seek God's wisdom in each age, rather than blindly trying to imitate or be bound to the past. My only problem with this is that finding out what "others think God likes" has proven notoriously problematic, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Virtually every Christian "Restoration Movement" (ie - any one of the numerous sects of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Snake Handlers of the Appalachians, the list goes on) did precisely what you are suggesting. The leader of each one of these groups claimed to have been spoken to by God, and had little problem finding people that "thought that God liked" the same thing he/she did. Our opinions of what we think "God likes" have a nasty tendency to be horribly wrong, even if there is anything resembling consensus. What we need is some way of judging whether our interpretations of what God "likes" are RIGHT or not, and, like it or not, Scripture has historically performed this role. The problem is that our "God-given minds" can still be used in appalling ways. God may give us the minds, but we're the ones who use them , and this can, and does lead to disastrous consequences. Jerry, you said “Then don’t take up the task. Let God. Use your God-given mind and ask God what he likes. Find out what others think God likes. Compare opinions within the church, and again, ask what God likes.” I appreciate your point. It is important to genuinely seek God’s wisdom in each age, rather than blindly trying to imitate or be bound to the past. My only problem with this is that finding out what “others think God likes” has proven notoriously problematic, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Virtually every Christian “Restoration Movement” (ie - any one of the numerous sects of Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Snake Handlers of the Appalachians, the list goes on) did precisely what you are suggesting. The leader of each one of these groups claimed to have been spoken to by God, and had little problem finding people that “thought that God liked” the same thing he/she did. Our opinions of what we think “God likes” have a nasty tendency to be horribly wrong, even if there is anything resembling consensus. What we need is some way of judging whether our interpretations of what God “likes” are RIGHT or not, and, like it or not, Scripture has historically performed this role. The problem is that our “God-given minds” can still be used in appalling ways. God may give us the minds, but we’re the ones who use them , and this can, and does lead to disastrous consequences.

]]> By: Jerry http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-320 Jerry Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:25:55 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-320 Ryan, you said, "Who determines which experiences with God are normative or worthy of emulation?" How about God? <br/><br/>You also said, "If the Bible is nothing but a record of human experience then I truly am free to pick and choose what I like and don't like - I am the ultimate authority, and religion becomes little more than sanctified therapy - whatever works for me/gets me through the day. I don't have nearly enough faith in myself to undertake such a task." Then don't take up the task. Let God. Use your God-given mind and ask God what he likes. Find out what others think God likes. Compare opinions within the church, and again, ask what God likes. <br/><br/>Let God "...perform the more important prescriptive task of challenging and changing our experience - i.e. declaring what it should or could be in the light of who God is, and where history is going." <br/><br/>Don't replace God with the bible. He's been known to be jealous. Ryan, you said, “Who determines which experiences with God are normative or worthy of emulation?” How about God?

You also said, “If the Bible is nothing but a record of human experience then I truly am free to pick and choose what I like and don’t like - I am the ultimate authority, and religion becomes little more than sanctified therapy - whatever works for me/gets me through the day. I don’t have nearly enough faith in myself to undertake such a task.” Then don’t take up the task. Let God. Use your God-given mind and ask God what he likes. Find out what others think God likes. Compare opinions within the church, and again, ask what God likes.

Let God “…perform the more important prescriptive task of challenging and changing our experience - i.e. declaring what it should or could be in the light of who God is, and where history is going.”

Don’t replace God with the bible. He’s been known to be jealous.

]]> By: Ryan Dueck http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-318 Ryan Dueck Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:05:45 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-318 If the 66 books of the Bible really are just records of 'experiences' people had with God, and our sole task is to see how these 'experiences' have the potential (or not) to shape us, then it's hard for me to see how the church's ongoing interaction with these texts can do anything but degenerate into a sort of relativistic quagmire. Who determines which experiences with God are normative or worthy of emulation? Presumably each individual believer. If the Bible is nothing but a record of human experience then I truly am free to pick and choose what I like and don't like - I am the ultimate authority, and religion becomes little more than sanctified therapy - whatever works for me/gets me through the day. I don't have nearly enough faith in myself to undertake such a task. At some level, we have to assume that these texts, while recording people's experiences of God, somehow also perform the more important prescriptive task of challenging and changing our experience - i.e. declaring what it should or could be in the light of who God is, and where history is going. If the 66 books of the Bible really are just records of ‘experiences’ people had with God, and our sole task is to see how these ‘experiences’ have the potential (or not) to shape us, then it’s hard for me to see how the church’s ongoing interaction with these texts can do anything but degenerate into a sort of relativistic quagmire. Who determines which experiences with God are normative or worthy of emulation? Presumably each individual believer. If the Bible is nothing but a record of human experience then I truly am free to pick and choose what I like and don’t like - I am the ultimate authority, and religion becomes little more than sanctified therapy - whatever works for me/gets me through the day. I don’t have nearly enough faith in myself to undertake such a task. At some level, we have to assume that these texts, while recording people’s experiences of God, somehow also perform the more important prescriptive task of challenging and changing our experience - i.e. declaring what it should or could be in the light of who God is, and where history is going.

]]> By: Jerry http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-316 Jerry Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:47:01 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-316 Jeff, I don't fully understand what you're getting at, but I'll throw you some more and maybe we'll eventually understand where we're coming from. <br/><br/>I want more of God's influence/authority in the church. I think an open canon would give God more room (formally speaking, for those mentored in the church) to use his authority in areas of our lives overlooked. <br/><br/>I'm sure you and Gil think, ultimately, God is our 'given' and our 'rule'. If Jesus' spirit is present in the church, he is enough for our 'christian identity'. But, of course, that gives no reason to throw the bible away. <br/><br/>If Gil will permit me to use his words with a few changes - "Hopefully if we do our interpretation of the [church's experiences with/of God] in conversation with others and not our own, God can still use [these experiences] to change us and shape us."<br/><br/>I used Gils words here to emphasize how much greater the canon is and can be than 66 books. Jeff, I don’t fully understand what you’re getting at, but I’ll throw you some more and maybe we’ll eventually understand where we’re coming from.

I want more of God’s influence/authority in the church. I think an open canon would give God more room (formally speaking, for those mentored in the church) to use his authority in areas of our lives overlooked.

I’m sure you and Gil think, ultimately, God is our ‘given’ and our ‘rule’. If Jesus’ spirit is present in the church, he is enough for our ‘christian identity’. But, of course, that gives no reason to throw the bible away.

If Gil will permit me to use his words with a few changes - “Hopefully if we do our interpretation of the [church's experiences with/of God] in conversation with others and not our own, God can still use [these experiences] to change us and shape us.”

I used Gils words here to emphasize how much greater the canon is and can be than 66 books.

]]> By: Jeffrey http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-315 Jeffrey Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:01:29 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2006/01/19/how-can-the-bible-be-authoritative/#comment-315 Some really good discussion here. I think what interests me most here right now is why we are looking for more authority in our lives. Not to be received as a negative comment, but some of you who are asking for an open canon are good representations of our anti-authoritarian culture. And the rest of us are right behind you whether we like it or not. We don't accept the authority of the church on our lives as we should. And certainly the Scriptures have become a book of convenience. So why do you want more of that? Some really good discussion here. I think what interests me most here right now is why we are looking for more authority in our lives. Not to be received as a negative comment, but some of you who are asking for an open canon are good representations of our anti-authoritarian culture. And the rest of us are right behind you whether we like it or not. We don’t accept the authority of the church on our lives as we should. And certainly the Scriptures have become a book of convenience. So why do you want more of that?

]]>