What's Authoritative For You?

As Ehrman notes in the introduction to the Canon Lists that conclude his book, the arguments between the “orthodox” and the “heretical” branches of the church contributes greatly to the formation of the canon. Remember a canon is a list of texts that a community deems authoritative for its life together and worthy for teaching and use in liturgy. An interesting question for each of us is to ask ourselves, “What does our community deem authoritative for our life together?” And another with it, “What’s worthy for teaching the faith we profess and for use in our liturgy?”

Is it only those texts that make sense to us? Do we include those texts that offend our sense of morality? Is a text worthy to be included only if we can prove it accurately reports the events described within it?

Thomas Jefferson created his own canon. He trimmed from the Bible all of the supernatural references so that scripture fit the expectations of modern people. His canon, along with Jefferson himself, is a product of the Enlightenment. Perhaps the dominant question regarding scripture that the Enlightenment leaves us with is, “Does the Bible report accurately the events it describes?”

Fundamentalists and historical-critical scholars alike are obsessed with this question. When it comes down to it, they really aren’t very different in their approach to scripture even though they end up on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding the text they both love. The former of these understand scripture to be inerrant and divinely inspired and as such will argue to their last breath that the Bible does report accurately in most if not all instances the events it describes – even if the historical and scientific evidence points to the contrary. Historical-critical scholars, using any and all available means at their disposal, point out that the Bible rarely reports accurately the events it describes. Instead, they see the Bible for what it is – a mytho-poetic document that intends to do something other than report history. As such, the predominance of their work describes more of what the Bible is not about than what it is about.

As you might guess, I’m more in line with the historical critical approach to the Bible. However, I believe that ultimately both the approach of these scholars and that of fundamentalists (and many more between the two spectrums) tend to read scripture in a flat method. We take a couple of verses or even a whole story and read it out of context asking only if the events are reported accurately. We miss the mytho-poetic nature of the text. But when we see those few verses or even a whole story in the wider context our reading is enriched.

Karl Barth, a 20th century German theologian, described the Bible as an alternative network of symbols that yields a script about God that acts as a counter-script to the dominant modes of meaning in the wider culture. This counter-script within scripture asks what needs are worth having and what goals are ultimately good. Perhaps an illustration will describe this approach best.

Will Willimon tells a story about preaching on the text of the Rich Man and Lazarus. In his sermon, he points out that most of us know best the position of the Rich Man – we don’t really know hunger, we’ve not lived in utter poverty, and we’ve generally always had enough. The rest of the world though lives in a different way. As he continued his homily, he read a newspaper description of poor folks in Brazil selling their body’s organs to rich buyers. The article told the story of a man named Walter who sold his eyes for $20,000. Walter said, “Now I can see that my family has a better life.” Willimon ended his sermon there but it didn’t end there. The next morning, he received a call from a parishioner who said she couldn’t sleep the previous night because she couldn’t get Walter out of her mind. The woman and her husband lived modestly but they had decided that they had to re-examine their lifestyle. They were going to buy a new car but they decided they didn’t really need one. They were going to buy a new stereo but they could continue with the one they already had. Then she said, “The reason I am calling you is to tell you that we want to double our giving to the church if you can assure us that some of it has a good chance of reaching someone like Walter.” (Willimon recounts this story in his book, Shaped By the Bible, 40-42).

So what’s authoritative for you?