Yarr! – The Weblog of Bob Heffernan

After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world.

So opens the book of Hebrews and this sheds much light on how the early believers viewed scripture; Jesus, the Christ and the Son of God, had fulfilled the scripture and was now the Word of God incarnate (in the language of John). As such, Jesus himself now takes the place in the life of the church that the scripture took in the life of Israel. God once spoke through Moses and the prophets but now he has spoken in a final way through Jesus. The scripture was still important, certainly. Firstly it provided evidence that God had acted in exactly the way in which he had promised in scripture and that Jesus had fulfilled the prophecies of scripture. Secondly, in the words of Paul, the scripture was `able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.’ Thirdly, and again in the words of Paul, by virtue of its inspired nature the scripture was `useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’. So, scripture formed an important part in both the evangelistic preaching and the internal teaching of the early church.

However, it seems clear that the most basic authority in the early church was Jesus as Word incarnate and his speech in the life of the church through the Spirit. It is clear that the Spirit could not speak in such a way as to contradict scripture — Jesus had not come to contradict scripture but he had fulfilled it — but it seems to me that the modern language of scripture as the sole authority in the life of the church would have seemed odd, if not outright blasphemous, to the early believers.

While the principle of scripture as self-interpreting is a valuable hermeneutical rule-of-thumb — certainly the idea of inspiration is a good basis for some idea of unity among the varying parts of scripture and this allows us to clarify one part of scripture with other parts — this can not be taken as a denial of the clear fact that things external to scripture are important, and often essential, when it comes to interpreting scripture. In the first instance, much work needs to be done in the study of the classics and ancient languages before we can even begin to read the New Testament documents or translate them into another language. Moreover, knowledge of the cultural and historical background is vital to the understanding and interpretation of scripture. Much will be missed if we deny this, even if we are careful to look to other parts of scripture for elucidation.

With regard to the idea of `perspicuity’ it seems to me that the history of Biblical interpretation rules this idea out of court. The scripture is evidently not clear and what one takes out of it depends strongly upon one’s context and the hermeneutical tradition to which one is heir.

The only way scripture can ever be `clear’ is through the action of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that any doctrine of scripture that wishes to argue that the scripture is in any way `clear’ must take the Spirit into account. This suggests that any doctrine of scripture is linked in a fundamental way to a doctrine of the Spirit, not just in the initial process of the writing of scripture but in the continual state of these inspired writings existing as scripture.

This raises issues of hermeneutics. Might it be necessary for a doctrine of scripture to take into account not only the documents themselves as scripture but the readings of those documents as, in some sense, scripture also. Can one read scripture as scripture without the Spirit mediating?

While we have no wish to dismiss flippantly the notion of verbal inspiration there are several indications that this doctrine may not correspond entirely with that of the apostles and early believers.

First there is the issue of translation. The earliest believers read and quoted from the LXX with impunity. There are several instances in which NT quotations of the Old Testament (LXX) are different from the reading we find in our Protestant bibles (where the OT is translated from the Masoretic text). In some instances the differences are quite large, although perhaps never to the point of contradicting the point being made. While the early believers would have been fully aware that the LXX was a translation this does not seem to have caused any occasion for pause. This makes one wonder how important the idea of verbal inspiration could have been to the early believers.

Secondly, with regard to statements about the `original autographs’, since we do not and never will have possession of these original autographs any assertions about verbal inspiration or any other properties are purely hypothetical. It seems to me that there is little point in basing any aspect of our doctrine of scripture on hypothetical documents. Any doctrine of scripture we espouse must deal with the actual documents were are dealing with and the actual means by which they have been transmitted. Moreover, since the early believers seem to have made little or no attempt to preserve these autographs it is unlikely that they were held in particular regard, over and against copies made from them.

Thirdly one might mention errors of grammar on the part of Paul, but this is perhaps a trifling point.

On what basis can we construct a canon of the New Testament? If we are to accept the ruling of the various councils, on what basis can we than say that scripture is the only authority for the church? On what basis can we say the canon is closed, or even should be closed?

Apart from Peter’s endorsement of Paul’s letters (including, perhaps, letters that are no longer extant) as scripture and John’s claim to have been told to record his Revelation (which is a claim to be writing scripture) we have little in the way of internal biblical evidence for the idea of a New Testament canon or for the idea that the NT writers believed themselves to be writing scripture. This is a later development. It is clear, however, that most of the NT writings were written as public documents and were intended for wide circulation.

Why subscribe to a notion of canon at all? There seems to be no evidence that the NT writers themselves did.

Apart from possible issues with the canon of the Old Testament (discussed in the previous post in this series) there is a definite problem when it comes to deciding exactly what constitutes the canon of the New Testament. The modern evangelical view of scripture is epitomised by the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, which states as one of its theses:

`We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.’

However, the canon of scripture was a product of early church councils. In this way, acceptance of the New Testament documents as scripture is a product of the very church councils that modern evangelicalism is otherwise (and justly) wary of. It seems to me that there are two options:

1. One can accept the decisions of the councils as binding in this matter and, consequently, as binding in their other proclamations also. It is difficult to justify a situation where the ecumenical councils spoke with authority only with regard to scripture. Modern evangelicalism has often tried to evade this point by arguing that the councils merely confirmed the status of what everybody already recognised to be scripture. However, this provides no basis for contending that the canon is now closed (since the closing of the canon was exclusively a function of the ecumenical councils).
2. Alternatively one must provide some other grounds for arguing for a fixed, and closed, canon.

[I am starting a series on Scripture which I will add to every few days for the next few weeks. It is my hope that these posts will generate some discussion, so if you're the sort of person who reads my blog but never comments, now is your chance...]

The question of the canon of the Old Testament is the first we must deal with. It seems to me that we can affirm that Jesus and the apostles would probably have considered all of the books in our canonised Old Testament as scripture. However, whether they would have considered other books besides these is open for debate, and whether they had much of a notion of canon at all is difficult to decide.

While it seems doubtful that there was a settled canon of the Old Testament during the time of Jesus it seems clear in the Gospels that Jesus accepted, without qualification, the existence of scripture. From his quotations and allusions to the Old Testament we can ascertain that he would have considered most (and so, probably all) of what we now call the Old Testament to be part of Scripture. It might be the case that Jesus accepted as scripture some books that were not added to the canon (some of the non-canonical portions of the LXX, for instance) but we have no direct evidence for this. He sometimes quoted scripture as the words of God and so clearly held to some notion of inspiration. So, it seems safe to say that what we now call the Old Testament is likely to have been accepted as inspired Scripture by Jesus himself.

When it comes to the attitudes of the apostles and early Christians it is again quite clear they held the same view. We have the clear evidence for Paul’s attitude — for example, in 2Tim 3:16: `Every scripture is inspired by God …’ — and we have an abundance of evidence throughout the Acts and the epistles in the way that the New Testament writers quote from and talk about Old Testament writings. Again, as with Jesus, the words of David, for instance, are sometimes referred to as the words of God and so there is again some notion of inspiration operating. The New Testament writers do, on occasion, refer to what would now be considered non-canonical writings and so there is some evidence that their canon might have been more inclusive than ours — perhaps comprising the entire LXX — but again this is difficult to say.

It is possible that the apostles and early believers, and perhaps Jesus himself, had no idea of `canon’ and may have seen scripture as something that could be added to. This is suggested by Peter’s willingness to consider the letters of Paul as scripture (cf. 2Pe 3:16).

An important question raised by the idea of `New Testament Christianity’ (see my last four posts) is the following:

• What is the place of the Bible in this framework?

This is an important question. If our aim is to live our Christian lives in the way that the Christians we read about in the New Testament did then we must recognise the fact that, while they held the Old Testament scriptures in high regard, they were not a ‘people of the book’. If we are to insist that there is no difference between the church prior to the closing of the canon and the church after the closing of the canon then several issues emerge. Why should we insist on such a thing as the canon of scripture in the first place? If we are going to profess suspicion of many of the developments of post-Constantinian Christianity, or even post-apostolic Christianity, why should we accept the rulings of the ecumenical councils on the matter of canon. If we really are to live in the same way as the first Christians, who had no New Testament, what place does the New Testament have in our Christian lives? Moreover, might it not be argued that the settling of the canon went hand in hand with the hardening of the hierarchical bishop-centred forms of Christianity that began to emerge after the first generation of Christians. If so, does a rejection of this hierarchical ecclesiology not necessitate a rejection of the idea of a New Testament canon?

To put it simply, the question is this: The earliest believers got along fine without a New Testament and relied primarily on the Spirit to teach them (through men such as Paul whom the Spirit equipped for this purpose). Why can’t we do the same?

Also, the existence of a New Testament surely gives rise to a dramatic change in ecclesial structure. Whereas before we have the spirit speaking through and to the church at large in a dynamic manner now we have scripture as a final and authoritative record of the spirit’s speaking. This gives rise to the need for the pastor as teacher/preacher whose job it is to interpret the scriptures for the church.

Rather than answer these questions, I think I will embark on a small series of posts outlining some issues and questions I have in this area. I am uncomfortable with the position many protestants seem to take, viz. we reject the idea that ecumenical councils have any authority and affirm that scripture is the only authority for the church. Well, ecumenical councils have authority in only one area, that is to decide what constitutes scripture. That is to say, we trust them on this one but nothing else. Those creeds might be nice, but need to be subjected to scripture. Why? Well…

It has always seemed to be an inconsistency that lies at the heart of much protestant thinking about the church and about God speaking. Not that I feel the need to reject scripture, but I am beginning to feel the need to restate and rediscover my ideas about it. My father and I have been discussing this sort of thing recently so in the next while I will trot out a few posts on scripture and questions I have in this regard to see if it generates any discussion.

The second objection to the idea of `New Testament Christianity’ (see my last three posts) is the following:

• What about the fact that the NT churches had obvious problems? Are we wise to try to emulate them?

This is a very common objection must be tackled in some detail. At base the objection is this: the early church clearly had many problems — a reading of some of Paul’s letters or of the first few chapters of Revelation makes this abundantly clear. When it comes to ecclesiology, for instance, might it not be the case that post-biblical developments in church organisation (which still have their `roots’ in scripture) have developed precisely to provide safeguards against some of these problems. In this way the emergence of hierarchy, the prominence of the pastor in Protestant circles or the priest and bishop in Catholic circles, the clergy laity distinction, and so on, may well be developments prompted by the Spirit in order to ensure order, to safeguard doctrine, etc.

If we take the word `church’ to denote a particular gathering of people (rather than something more general) the objection may be nuanced a little further — which New Testament church are you trying to emulate? The church in Corinth?, the church in Galatia?, the church in Rome? Each of these had significant problems. Suggesting that there is some perfect 1st century church that we must emulate is to ignore the clear biblical evidence that no such church ever existed.

In response to the latter point it should be made clear that I am not proposing some particular 1st century Christian grouping be emulated slavishly. Nor am I implying that the 1st century church taken as a whole was or is perfect and should, as such, be emulated. Finally, I am not postulating the existence of some theoretical perfect church that can or should be emulated. However, to say this is not to say that there is little or nothing in the praxis of the early Christians that we can emulate. Recall that in my first post my programmatic statement was that `the New Testament documents give a reasonably clear picture of what early church practice was and what the teachings of some of the early apostles (especially Paul) were with regard to these issues.’ So, from the NT we can learn at least something about each of the following:

• what the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were;
• what the self-understanding of the early believers was;
• how they attempted to put this into practice (even when they got it wrong); and
• how they were corrected when they did get it wrong.

From this we can think about

• how we might learn from the experience of the NT church — including how we might learn from the mistakes made and the corrections given; and
• how we might attempt to live in our context in the same sort of way that they did in theirs.

A larger issue of hermeneutics is raised here — how do we use scripture to inform our own practice? Can we read Paul, for instance, and extract a number of timeless abstract principles that can be applied in the present? If so, why are we presented with information about early praxis at all (including problems and mistakes)? If not, how do we apply scripture? I want to deal with this and other issues in a future post but a brief discussion is relevant here. As is often pointed out, the NT is not a systematic theology. The Gospels and Acts present us with various narratives and the other books (the various epistles and Revelation) are rooted in and proceed out of the narrative of the early church (given, at least in part, in Acts). So, to take Scripture seriously we must take it seriously in the form in which it presents itself. If narrative really is important then our task must be to see how the early church acted (and reacted) and what their teachings were and then to try to discern why they acted as they did, discern why they made the mistakes they made, discern why the corrections take the form they do and finally to decide if Christian praxis in the modern context should look substantially the same as, or dramatically different from, Christian praxis in the 1st century.

My contention, and I must attempt to substantiate it in a future post, is that the praxis of the Christian was in the 1st century, and should be in the 21st century, non-hierarchical, egalitarian and communitarian and that the NT documents provide the basis for a workable model to emulate in this regard. If we attempt to live in our context as the earliest Christians did in theirs the same pattern should emerge — that of real community, existing in the power of the Spirit and demonstrating in and to the world the very love of God.

I feel that many of the post-biblical developments in ecclesiology and much of what we take for granted in the way that we exist and act as Christians today (particularly in our gatherings) does more harm than good — stifling the active participation of most individuals (especially women) and replacing the vibrant (if sometimes flawed) community we find in the 1st century with a rigid hierarchical system which, even when populated by well intentioned people, mitigates against the manifestation of that community of the redeemed characterised by love that the earliest Christians sought to embody.

Addendum

Reading back over the last few posts I realise I’ve been presenting the hermeneutic/attitude of `NT Christianity’ as if it were an original idea of my own. This couldn’t be further from the case. The attitudes I’m outlining are certainly not original or particular to myself, although they do characterise the attitude I was brought up with in my local fellowship. Much of the way I think about the Christian life — even when I feel I have arrived at some of it through my own searching, thinking and praying — is due to the values instilled in me by my parents and other members of my fellowship. Some of what I am talking about is central to the house church movement and some of it may be found in parts of the emerging church movement. Like I said in my first post, although you can find Christians of most stripes who would agree with most or all of what I’m saying I still find that I am on a slightly different wavelength to most of the Christians I talk to. This series of posts is largely an attempt to put into words some of my own thoughts and attitudes and to see if any of it holds water.

A recent and interesting, if sometimes annoyingly rhetorical, example of many of the attitudes I’ve been talking about may be found in the recent book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. This book really is worth a read. In it Viola and Barna trace the history of many common and accepted church practices and show that their origins are mostly in pagan culture rather than Jewish culture or the Bible. The argument they make is not that non-Biblical influences are necessarily wrong — they state this at the beginning of the book although their rhetoric sometimes would make it seem that this is what they’re arguing and it has been caricatured as such in reviews. The substance of their argument, however, is that if a practice has no Biblical warrant it must be examined carefully to see if it is really helpful. They (and I) feel that many of the practices considered (the emergence of a clergy, the order of worship, the proliferation of church buildings, etc.) are often not helpful and, indeed, are often quite harmful.

Other examples of the attitudes I’m outlining can be found within certain segments of the emerging movement/conversation. Many emerging Christians have a suspicion of the post-Constantinian compromise and a desire to rediscover the centrality of a missional community in the Christian life.

The first and most obvious objection to the idea of `New Testament Christianity’ (see my last two posts for a brief discussion of what I mean by this) is the following:

• Isn’t it arrogant to suggest that the church may have, or has, got it so wrong?

This question breaks down into a number of sub-questions that I want to address in turn:

1. Are you claiming that your understanding of the NT and of ecclesiology in the NT is authorative in some way and that others have, for thousands of years, simply not understood what you claim to understand?
2. Is it reasonable to ignore almost 2000 years of church history and suggest that the church was misguided throughout?

1. Am I claiming some sort of special knowledge or some special authority?

First, the straight answer: no, absolutely not.

Second the slightly snarky answer: this is the sort of accusation that those who are heavily invested in the status quo always level against those who challenge the status quo — `what makes you so special that you feel you can challenge what so many have accepted?’. To refute this one need only point out that the status quo as it stands will most likely initially have been established as a challenge against a previously prevailing status quo. So, for instance, Martin Luther and many of the other reformers made so bold as to question many of the prevailing ideas of their day — indeed they reached back behind them to Augustine and to Paul. Much of what might be construed as essential doctrine in Protestant circles today involved a challenge to several hundred years of Church teaching and practice at the time.

Third the full disclosure: I am convinced that the interpretation of Scripture and, indeed, everything else related to attempting to follow Jesus, attempting to obey the Father and attempting to live in communion with the Spirit, occurs within the context of community — in the context of the ecclesia. As such, I must always hold my own interpretations lightly and must seek to refine them in dialogue with other believers. So, I am not claiming special knowledge about the practice or belief of the early Christians nor am I claiming any special authority for my interpretation over and against that of any other Jesus follower. In fact, I think it is probable that the beliefs and practices of the early Christians are well understood (and always have been, more or less) by most theologians and biblical scholars and, often, by many or most non-academic Christians if they have taken the time to study their bibles. Moreover, I do believe that most individual Christians attempt to put into practice what they learn (with varying degrees of success, of course). So, I am not claiming any special knowledge per se. However, I am claiming that for much of its history the church (and individual Christians) have embraced a hermeneutic that postulates an essential difference between the era previous to the closing of the canon and our era (after the closing of the canon). This hermeneutic allows church practice to diverge greatly from the practice and teaching of the early church even when the church is attempting to be faithful to scripture. What I’m calling `NT Christianity’ is the rejection of this hermeneutic, not the claim to special knowledge or special interpretive authority.

2. Is it reasonable to ignore almost 2000 years of church history and suggest that the church was misguided throughout?

First the short answer: it is certainly not reasonable to reject 2000 years of church history. However, criticism of church practice throughout this history does not entail rejection of this history.

Second the slight bit of snark: I might again point to Luther and the reformers as an example of people who suggested that the church had been misguided in fundamental ways for hundreds of years. For most of these reformers this did not entail a rejection of that history.

Second the longer answer: I do not reject history. I am not declaring the last 2000 years or so to have been bunk. To illustrate this, a study of the practice of the early Christian Celts in Ireland — the way in which they managed for hundreds of years to keep the distinctives of their culture while embracing the gospel in a very radical way — has been of great importance to me and to my friends. I will not even bother to give other examples — history provides manifest examples of God revealing himself in the church and working with and through the church over the past 2000 years. This makes it entirely impossible to reject this history. However, to suggest that there may have been fundamental problems is not to suggest that there were not many triumphs. In the same way, to suggest that much or most of contemporary Christianity may have its ecclesiology wrong is not to suggest that God can not, or is not using contemporary Christians. However, it is impossible to deny the serious problems of modern Christianity — for example, one need only read John 17 and listen to Jesus’ prayer for Christian unity and then compare it to the present situation. As such, it cannot be arrogant to attempt to identify a source of these problems or to suggest potential solutions to them.

Addendum

I should point out that one thing I feel the reformers did a very bad job of reforming was ecclesiology. More radical groups like the Anabaptists made more of an effort in this regard. The reformers largely retained many of the received ecclesiological forms and those changes they did introduce were, by and large, still in thrall to the idea of Christendom and the notion of the church as an institution. Subsequent Protestants have, of course, made substantial changes (for example, the rejection of infant baptism by Baptists and others). The notion of Christendom was really only challenged in the early parts of the 20th century as sweeping changes in society made it manifestly irrelevant.

I think a little more clarification is in order before I continue my series on NT Christianity.

Stepping back, for a moment, from the focus on ecclesiology, I think a good way to broadly categorise the (hermeneutical) attitude I’m calling `New Testament Christianity’ is that it is there is no fundamental difference between the sort of life a Christian can (and should) live now and the sort lived in the New Testament era.

So, for instance, I can (potentially) have exactly the same sort of relationship with God that Paul did. I can experience the presence and power of the Spirit in the same way that Stephen did. I can be used by the Spirit to do miracles in the way that Peter was. I can experience the intense Spirit-driven community that some of the early believers did. The list goes on.

I’m not being simplistic here — there are obvious exceptions. For instance, the first disciples met Jesus as a physical person whereas I can’t (this side of the eschaton) and so I can’t quite relate to god in this way. Still, I think the distinction I’m making is clear. I think it’s also clear that what I’m calling NT Christianity cannot be caricatured as a desire to start wearing sandals and togas, speaking koine Greek, or anything of the sort.

There are obvious questions arising here: if the closing of the canon does not constitute a fundamental shift in what it means to be a Christian then what is the significance of the canon or even of the canonical writings themselves for a post-400AD Christian? I will try to address some of these questions in a future post.

In my next post I will begin to tackle the first of the objections mentioned in my first post — the idea that this `NT Christianity’ hermeneutic/attitude is arrogant and revisionist.

p.s. — I am beginning to realise that the appellation of `New Testament Christianity’ is a clumsy one. I should have thought of a better phrase. I use the phrase mainly because this is a phrase we have always used in the fellowship that I am a part of, eg. `we want to be “New Testament Christians” and live like the Christians in the NT did’. This has always been an important part of our identity as a group. So I have always associated this suspicious attitude toward post-Constantinian Christianity coupled with the desire to emulate the earliest believers with the phrase `New Testament Christianity’. Would anybody like to suggest a better appellation?