Saturday, May 05, 2012

The Canon of the Church is not Closed

Arguments and positions abound regarding the authority of Scripture.  The basic argument for its divine authority is that for a period of time, God authorized the inspiration of human authorship for his divine revelation in written form.  God gave a window of time through which the Bible could be authoritatively authored by human beings on his behalf.

That time closed at a point when the last New Testament book was what theologians call, "canonized" or "canonization."  When you hear people speak about the Canon of Scripture - "Canon" basically means that a fulfilled library of texts are collected, ascertained as to their authoritative nature (by the historic church) and then given a status of being "canonized" thereby closing off other options for what can be authoritative.  When it comes to the Bible, the current belief is that that time of decision making for which books belong and which don't, closed up shop long ago.  It's a done deal.

So what about the Canon of the Church?

Many believe that church tradition is one of the authoritative voices that coincides with Scripture's authority while others believe that the tradition of the church is at least authoritative on some level even if it isn't on par with Scripture.

Whether that is true or not, if we are understanding the authority of the church in a similar paradigm that Scripture itself operates in, then we need to honor the fact that the Canon of the Church (tradition) is not closed.

Church tradition only offers us one side of the coin that Church as an interpretive community has to offer. If we are truly supposed to worship God in the New Creation as every tongue tribe and nation, then the "Church" universal has not completed its maturity into a full worshipping community.

The regnant voice of authority in Church tradition is lop-sided, incomplete, many times inconsiderate and ultimately juvenile.

Kenton Sparks in his new book, Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture, appeals to Alasdair MacIntyres argument in Whose Justice? Which Rationality?  which states that healthy traditions are able to interrogate their own boundaries.  Sparks follows MacIntyre arguing that

"...the church needs to be vigilant not only in guarding its tradition (something it has often done well) but also in carefully considering where the tradition might be mistaken (something it has often failed to do)." pg 5.

If the church universal is the Church and the historical and local expressions of that body are adequate, yet radically incomplete shadows of the Church, then any tradition that espouses their own veracity and authority to the elitist exclusion of others both existent and forthcoming, does so with great audacity, insecurity and arrogance.  To mine the depths of a tradition in order to gain a sense of depth, authority and historical accuracy in one's worship and theological interpretation is absolutely necessary.  To assume that this gives one's community authority over others' communities of faith, ignores the Biblical trajectory of what the church, in its full expression, actually is.  

We are not the "Church triumphant", we are the "Church adolescent," still wet behind the ears with the infant baptism of the Church's birth.  For us to claim authority through our traditions, mere historicity, historical interpretive frameworks all the while ignoring the Church who are yet to arrive, to speak into reality and to interpret from their context, is naive.  

The witness of every tribe is needed to fully express our authority as a community.  The certainty of forthcoming contexts of the coming communities of faith only invalidate our high claims to authority in our communities.  

Without the voice of Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Australia's First People, Native America, Southern Asia, etc. - there is no voice of final authority in church tradition - the canon of the Church is not closed.  

The question remains - how then do the current local and historical expressions of the church claim authority through their tradition without making the mistake of impatience and regnant audacity discussed above?

No comments:

Post a Comment