Call me a traditionalist, but I don't believe three guys on a golf course have the authority to determine what's canonical. I think the fad of postmodernity is still gripping so many people who've decided that the historical way of doing things isn't the right way. However, I see many more people shying away from such bunk and, in a sense, “coming back” to historical ways of doing things. I don't think this simply shows that people like the comfort of having things decided for them, as some have critiqued; I think the truth is that the Spirit has been with the Church through several centuries, and though He can go where he wants, that's how He's worked for the most part.

Great response. From what you've written I can see that we are relatively similar in our thinking and understanding regarding what is part of the biblical canon and what is not. Moreover, I think that for the most part we would agree as to the reasoning behind the inclusion of some texts and the exclusion of others.

I think your point about the canon being “defined just as much by what you keep out as what you let in” is rather interesting. I agree with the assessment, but I think that in our current culture that there would be many who would not. In the past, there would have been councils which would have decided such matters. Councils, incidentally, which would have included pastors, academics, and scholars. However, today the conversation (as this post evidences) is being played out in a new place, by a new cast of characters- many of them not as biblically literate or historically astute as in ages past. My concern is that while the Church may not feel the need to revisit or include other texts in the canon, that they will be included on a popular level whether we like it or not.

Something even more interesting, I think, happens when one begins to take into account the argument that you made regarding “the 'historically authoritative' consideration of canon.” You suggested that “the main difference is: what's appropriate for study and spiritual growth, and what's appropriate for worship.” With people are indeed leaving “church” to have church on the golf course or informally in their home with friends, as many have asserted, then on what basis do we then arrive at a historically authoritative consideration of canon? Do the three golf buddies do this on the basis of what works for them? Do the house/cell gatherings decide this for themselves?

I don't know that you really overstated your case; on the most basic, ground-level Christianity, the word “canon” itself isn't even defined well. So in the sense that canon is, for the average Christian, whatever is included to help one understand the Bible, then yes, the canon is expanding. But, as you've already said, we know that on the larger, “historically-authoritative” scale, canon as we understand it is fixed.

But you do bring up an interesting issue when looking at the “historically-authoritative” consideration of canon. Here I think the main difference is: what's appropriate for study and spiritual growth, and what's appropriate for worship. Here I find the Anglican answer helpful. The Anglican Church has said, historically, “We understand your reasoning for wanting to include these other books in the same bound codex as the rest of the traditionally-accepted books. However, since they have been historically disputed, we don't feel right including them in our public worship.” Hence why, I would say 9 times out of 10, when the lectionary says it's time to read from Maccabees, Anglican churches won't include it in public worship, but they won't exclude it from personal readings. It's still as good for the spiritual life as some other books, but we just don't think it has the historical precedence to worship with it publicly. That's really the most educated response I can give to that; I can't speak for the Orthodox Church. Though I don't know if I fully answered your question.

Your final statement is even more telling. It's a sign of the times that people like Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman are getting so much air time. As you know, there are plenty of people out there now who are saying exactly what you and I are really disliking: “Why not include Thomas? Why not include the Acts of Mary? Why not include 4th Jimbohoziaphat?” They've dissolved the meaning of the word canon, since canon is defined just as much by what you keep out as what you let in. When everybody's special, nobody's special.

I'd like to think that what's going to eventually steer people away from this is the awakening and realization that there's something different about these works at their core. Now, there's a much slighter difference between allowing the Didache and allowing the Gospel of Thomas, but beyond some of the seemingly vapid reasons for letting some stuff in and keeping some stuff out (e.g., how much stock you put in the influence of Irenaeus in retaining only four Gospel accounts), there was some deeper fundamental essence the Church found lacking in some of those works. And, as you suggest, in the end it may come down, too, to how you define “Church”. I don't know that I can say more as to which Church I generally mean besides the one that existed before the East-West split, maybe.

I think that you said things very well.

Your comments make me think that I may have overstated my case and inadvertently pushed a little further than was my intention. For example, I do not truly believe that the canon is evolving or expanding. I think that there are many Protestants who have incorporated extra-biblical material into their lives (probably at first in a way that was healthy and profitable) to the extent that it subsumes the role of Scripture. I think that fundamentalists have done this with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. to the extent that what began as an interpretative framework has become the Truth itself.

That said, however, as you noted, I'm not the kind of person who goes around yelling, “sola scriptura”. One of the reasons that I am in the Wesleyan-Arminian camp is that I have found the four-fold emphasis of Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience which form the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to be incredibly beautiful and helpful with respect to theology, study, etc.

Where I would still push back, however, is with respect to your assertion that “the Church is pretty good at judging what's in and what's out [of the canon].” While I understand what it is that you are suggesting, I think that we have to honestly ask, “Which church are we talking about?” As you well know, Roman Catholics have a canon which is more inclusive than the Protestant canon. What is more, the Orthodox canon is more inclusive still. Like you, I trust the Church (actually I trust the Church which operates under the Lordship of Christ and the direction of the Spirit)- but is there room for the Protestant church's canon to expand to include some of the texts which are included in either the Catholic or Orthodox canon?

Like I've said, I overstated my case, especially with respect to study Bibles and YouVersion elevating personal commentary to the level of canonized material. However, in some ways, with the likes of YouVersion and WikiBible especially, I can see the Protestant mind widening to embrace things that were previously foreign. What is more, with the increased level of biblical illiteracy, I'm relatively confident that someone could sneak The Shepherd of Hermas of the Gospel of Thomas into one of these online Bibles without many people being the wiser.

First, at no time has the Church as an organized body not had some sort of secondary material by which the primary body may be interpreted. The post-Lutheran (maybe extra-Lutheran?) cry for “Sola Scriptura” is silly at best, misguided at worst. Even Luther himself incorporated the study of at least the Fathers into his interpretation! When we look at some of the main extant codices of the Greek, the biblical text is absolutely miniscule and unreadable because of all the commentaries surrounding it. I think it's ridiculous and foolish for a Protestant to hold on to some sort of ideal of being dependent only upon the biblical text when that Protestant's job is to interpret Scripture. I'm not labeling you as one of those people, please don't misunderstand. Just speaking in generalities.

Second. To answer the main question your post poses, “Is the biblical canon still evolving,” I answer, “no.” I believe the biblical canon is pretty well set in stone at this point, and it would take some sort of major revelation now to have it changed. The reason I think this is based in my first point. The Church as a living organism has judged remarkably well what's “inspired” and what isn't. Now, there have been some judgement calls (such as including 2 Peter/Jude at the expense of Shepherd of Hermas), but on the whole I think that BECAUSE canon and interpretive material have existed side by side, the Church is pretty good at judging what's in and what's out. Maybe I think that because the whole post-modern fad never caught on in my brain, and I still trust the Church as an historical institution, and I still trust in a metanarrative. But that's a different post.

Glad that you found the book helpful and that it led to greater levels of clarity on your part. However, for me, as I mentioned, the book did not really help to provide answers nor did it provide greater levels of clarity. The beautiful thing about books is that one might speak to and be helpful to me, whereas to you it would seem utterly foolish and not at all helpful.

All of that to say- I thank you for your feedback and it is great to hear that others are having other reactions to the book.

Blessings!

Josh

I got this book because I seek some answers and more clarity, and Chris doesn't disappoint me with his explanations.

Wednesday I was searching for sites related to joshrhone.com ” Book Review: “The Search for God and Guinness” sites and I found your site. I give this one a perfect 10!…