July 6, 2009 issue
Humility, honesty, humor
By Sarah ThompsonPage:
- 1
- 2
In the weeks leading up to the 15th assembly of Mennonite World Conference in Paraguay this month, I took a summer course at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary on “Canon and Community.”
Thompson
In my previous experiences with MWC, questions about the biblical canon have arisen. As I enter international dialogue again — this time as an organizer and seminary student — I carry with me the belief that how we read the Bible, and understand the process of how texts were chosen for the canon, matters for the church today.
Each of us has a perspective on understanding the Bible. These many views enrich rather than diminish us as a worldwide faith community.
The class I took discussed the process of biblical development — including the complex questions of divine inspiration, eclectic manuscripts, and scribal translation and activity through the centuries.
The second through fourth centuries after the life of Christ were a time of diverse understandings of authoritative Scripture. Jesus and the growing Christian movement used the Hebrew Scriptures. When the stories of Jesus were written down in the first and second centuries, communities of believers had to work together to discern which texts were going to govern their lives.
There were arguments about interpretation and about how the sacred texts should be applied in different contexts.
We are still caught in the “Bible wars.” Christians fight over how one group or another reads and interprets the Bible.
Coming to one mind on the issue is impossible, but that is OK. The Bible sets a precedent for holding differing perspectives in tension. It often preserves multiple voices on a subject.
When we recognize the potential for multiple readings from one text — and commit to collectively weighing all readings alongside church tradition, personal experiences and knowledge — the biblical canon comes alive in new ways. The Bible is again seen as a tool for telling the Christian story. God uses it differently in different contexts to invite faithful responses by those who read it.
This is not an argument for cultural relativism. Discussion about the Bible in cross-cultural settings — where relationships have been built through worship and work together — is a necessity for our global Anabaptist communion. After listening to the testimonies of faithfulness in other places, we can offer questions of challenge and words of encouragement.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
Dear Sarah, May I make a some comments on your letter: There are scholars who would make the case that the canon of Scripture used by the church was formed as people recognized the authority of certain documents, and the lack of authority of other documents. While there was uncertainty about some books relating to their authoritative status, the church ultimately accepted the twenty-seven books of the New Testament that we presently have (there are some who hold that the Apocryphal writings are to be included, but most people coming from the Reformation do not). The scholars mentioned above would say that the church did not assign authority to the books of the canon, and include them by assigning authority to them. Re. the use of the Hebrew Scriptures: Writers of the New Testament epistles often used the Septuagint. And regarding multiple readings of texts of Scripture: Scott Duvall and Daniel Hays have noted that when Scripture is viewed as communication from God, we are going to look for a single meaning for a text. To communicate effectively, one will speak with a single sense. There are, of course, places where multiple senses are recognized, such as in poetry, humor, parables, perhaps prophecy, and, in the case of the Old Testament, the possible of sensus plenior ,where our New Testament authors may recognize a meaning included by God in an Old Testament passage that was to be understood in the time of the full revelation that came with Jesus Christ. Blessings as you study this magnificent area of Scriptural understanding.
Comment on the article Humility, honesty, humor
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
