|
The Canonical Diversity of Christianity[1] |
||||
|
When speaking about the canon and inspiration, we must quickly come to terms with what we mean by not only canon, but also by orthodoxy.[2] Do I mean by orthodoxy my own interpretation of a certain vague passage in Scripture, or do I mean something else? In fact, what do I mean by ‘orthodoxy’? Most people would like orthodoxy to refer to something that is concrete; that is, something set in (holy) stone. In turn, most people are claiming that the New Testament contains an identifiable orthodoxy (at the very least); i.e., an easily identifiable and concrete kērygma.[3] This further leads to the naďve belief that Scripture must also contain a “final expression of Christian truth whose meaning is unequivocal.”[4] However, finding such orthodoxy creates more (unnecessary) confusion than it clears up! First, by saying that the NT contains a single orthodox kērygma, we are saying that any other kērygma must then be unorthodoxy. Secondly, is it even appropriate to say that absolute truth could be contained in a single set of words? Is truth limited to a formula or statement? Should the entire career of the one known today as “Jesus Christ” be interpreted by the banal command “Love your neighbor as yourself” or “Hate your mother and father”? Should the sum total of a Man’s intellect or prophetic anointing or moral interrogative be reduced to a hackneyed statement or two? The third problem is the greatest: was there even such a Christianity that was, from the beginning, historically united and ‘pure’ in halakah? Such contra- quasi- dictions are historical dilemmas, though an honest look at history tells us otherwise: there was no single form of Christianity that was considered (by contemporaries) to be the only valid and “catholic” form of Christianity in early (Jewish / Messianic) Christianity. The classical Christian ‘orthodox’ view is that there originally was one pure, uncontaminated kērygma handed down from Yahshua ben Yehosef, to his talmidim, his shlichim, to his mevaqqerim, and back to the crowd, which came to be known as (according to the Acts) the Assembly of Yahweh. Unfortunately, this view is seriously flawed (as we will see). First, we must attempt to isolate that single orthodox kērygma that many claim to have found (if, in fact, a single, pure teaching common to all the authors of the NT does exist). Jesus gave us what is the first so-called uncontaminated ‘gospel’: the preaching (kērygma) of the “good news of the kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43). This is the first correct and orthodox ‘teaching’ that was pure and undefiled. This is the very heart and root of so-called ‘orthodoxy.’ The teaching of Jesus, His ‘kērygma,’ was fairly simple. Here are a few key points that James D. G. Dunn has pointed out about Jesus’ teaching:[5]
Jesus’ kērygma would appear to be absolutely primitive to such highly developed and finely tuned views we now hold. In fact, His teaching sounds too simple for the modern-day armchair theologian! But, in a nutshell, this is the kērygma, the orthodox teaching, of Christ. In the NT, we have many different kērygmata (plural for kērygma). If we claim that orthodoxy must eventually go back to a single kērygma, we must look outside the New Testament for such heresy. The NT contains no single kērygma. Luke, for example, had a different teaching. His was focused on (1) the resurrection of Christ Jesus, (2) the call for faith in Jesus, and (3) the promise of forgiveness, salvation, and spirit to those who responded.[6] Jesus proclaimed the kingdom, while Luke proclaimed Jesus. For Jesus, the Kingdom of God was the most widely preached thing; for Luke, the Spirit was the most important thing (along with Paul). The word ‘spirit’ is mentioned 96 times in Luke-Acts. The one proclaiming had now become the one proclaimed. In Acts, the Spirit is what is ‘worshipped’ while the historicity of Jesus Himself is, to an extent, tossed aside. The historical Jesus- His life, His teachings, His travels- rarely features in Acts. Luke did not care about some ‘coming kingdom’ phrase that Jesus stressed, nor did he stress what was most important for Paul: love (1 Cor. 13). In fact, Luke never mentions the noun or verb for ‘love’ in the entire book of Acts! As for Paul and John, love occurs 108 times in Paul and 95 times in the Johannine literature. What was Paul’s kērygma? If we isolate Paul’s ideas, we end up with an entire different theology. The most important feature in Paul’s preaching is the Risen Christ (Rom. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:3-11; 1 Thess. 1:10). But, along with Acts, the historical Jesus is hardly mentioned. At the end of the day, intimacy with Christ was all that mattered (phrases like “in Christ” and such occur over 160 times in Paul!).[7] Again, as with Acts, the ‘coming Kingdom’ or the ‘kingdom of Heaven’ is basically ignored in Paul’s writings and his kērygma. In the Johannine literature, we find a slightly different kērygma. Here, Jesus is ultimately the Divine Man that is God (1:1, 14). He is no longer the human of Mark’s gospel. One may note here that John never uses the Greek word kyrios (which means “Lord”) when referring to Jesus; while Paul uses the word over 230 times (Paul’s Jesus was also not the super-God/Man of John).[8] The word ‘believe’ is mentioned 98 times.[9] Everything is based on faith. For John, faith was concrete and tangible. You had to choose either life or death (1 John 3:14); you either were a part of light or a part of darkness (1 John 1:5-7). For John, unlike for Paul (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 9:19-23), there was no middle ground. One had to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, only then did one have life. It is interesting to note the fact that John never mentions repentance. If Jesus spent His days, like John the Baptist, screaming “Repent,” John spent his days screaming, “Believe.” Such great differences in kērygma must not be overlooked. In Jesus, we have a coming (or already here) Kingdom of God and the need for repentance; in Paul, we have the Risen Christ and love; in Luke, we have the Spirit, Spirit, and Spirit; in John, we need only believe. Obviously, one must not insist on contradiction here; rather, one must press the fact that here we see clearly diversity. And in diversity one finds disagreement. In all of this diversity, and here I am not even beginning to be exhaustive, what is the unifying factor? It is, according to Dunn, Jesus. Jesus is the unifying factor in all of the kērygmata. He alone serves as the “chief cornerstone.” All kērygmata are built on Him. But what do Christians do with the different emphases? Do we ‘reconcile’ them all into one mixing pot and try to make one can of soup out of the many? Or do we rather try to see the diversity, the different thoughts and opinions, and try to find our own theology (in accordance with the Scriptures)? We must, I believe, do our best historically, be unbiased in biblical research (see the different opinions), strive to find unity, and realize our diversity. Paul has faced a similar problem two millennia ago in Corinth. He created an ekklesia (‘body of Christ,’ ‘congregation’ or ‘church’) that was bound for destruction due to its misinterpretation of doctrine: some folk were being too dogmatic. Doctrine was the dividing force. He writes in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 the following words: For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free- and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less apart of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we cloth with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.[10] Paul is clearly trying to find some middle-ground here; he has sensed that diversity (and we all differ from one another) has led to hate; doctrine has led to dispute; orthodoxy has led to loss of the essential: love. Paul writes a few sentences later what has become one of the most beautiful descriptions of love: 1 Corinthians 13. Paul is here trying his best to produce unity out of (in spite of?) diversity. We can, along with Paul, say, in our own paraphrase, “Can the Pentecostals say to the Catholics, ‘We have no need of you?’ Can the spiritual say to the theologically-wise, ‘We have no need of you?’” Obviously not! Paul would not have it that way! Neither shall we. If Paul can find a middle-ground, why can we not? If Paul can accept the orthodox Gnostics of Corinth, why should we not? In fact, he calls them the body of Christ. He does not deny it. We have seen how diverse early Christian kerymata were, what about early Christian sermons? Were they, too, diverse? One good look at Paul’s view of faith and James’ should give us a clear answer. In Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3:6, Paul argues from Genesis 15:6 that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. After the Lord tells Abraham that he will have as many children as there are stars, Abraham “believed the Lord; and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness.”[11] Paul goes on to say that Abraham did not have works (circumcision) but only faith (for he was circumcised [works] after the Lord has said that he was righteous). We could consider Paul’s words as a sort of mini-sermon on Genesis 15:6; a midrash or pesher on the text. A sort of ‘commentary’ on it. What of James’ ‘sermon’ on the same text? If you belonged to the first-century Jerusalem Church, you would be taught primarily by James. If you belonged to the first-century Roman congregation, you would be taught by Paul. Paul argued that faith justifies people; James argued that works justifies people. In James 2:14-25, James tells his audience exactly what he means: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”--and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works…[12] This stands in stark contradiction to what Paul says in Romans 5:1, we are “justified by faith” he says. James, on the other hand of ‘canonical diversity,’ says that we are “justified by works.” Whether we like it or not, the Bible, as it now stands, is full of diversity. No denomination should try to limit God and His Word and place Him (or the Bible, for that matter) inside a box. This is exactly what (uncalled for) orthodoxy[13] tries to do. It tries to put God into a box that is bound by imaginary boundaries that are reflections of mere human interpretation and tradition. The very thing that Jesus Himself feared. We are to keep Paul’s idea in mind: the body is made up of many members. In fact, it would be proper to substitute “members” with “denominations.” The body of Christ is made up of many denominations. No single denomination can claim the ‘correct’ faith. No single denomination can say, “We are the one, true faith. Everyone else is deceived.” The Bible, as it now stands, allows no such thing. We have both Paul and James as our teachers. Of course, we can find ways around these texts and argue for unity, but such arguments are superfluous and defeat the purpose of reading the Scriptures as they now appear. Rather, we should see the differences and we should accept them. Just like we should accept other denominations as valid expressions of Christianity. James D. G. Dunn summarized his argument pretty well regarding this subject when he said: Christians will simply have to accept the fact of different expressions and interpretations of ‘the kērygma’ and live with them- accepting the necessity and the validity of these different expressions, and not being upset over them or grieving over them as ‘sinful divisions’ or ‘heretical schisms’. At the same time the abstraction (and it is an abstraction) of the core kērygma does give a clear enough indication of the distinctive character of Christianity- a clear enough basis for common action, service and worship. To demand more as the indispensable minimum is tantamount to asking Paul to excommunicate James or Luke to excommunicate John![14] We cannot say, as some dogmatic Christians would, that we are “justified by faith.” Though Martin Luther may have been right regarding Paul, he was not right regarding James and other Christians like him.[15] We cannot say that Paul is right and James is wrong (as Luther). We must also remember that these kērygmatic teachings were not exactly the authority. For Paul, John and Luke, the Spirit was the sole authority. These teachings and traditions are only authoritative when they are reinterpreted by the Spirit. Or, in other words, when these kērygmata are understood by and through the Spirit. Even here, we can say, with a bit of certainty, that even the orthodox kērygmata were not exactly authoritative. In a relatively detailed study regarding tradition, interpretation and kērygma, Dunn concluded by saying, “For Paul and John the kērygmatic and Jesus traditions are authoritative, but not in themselves, not independently authoritative. They are authoritative only when taken into conjunction with the present inspiration of the Spirit.”[16] Even when we do find some form of orthodox kērygma, we cannot say with certainty that that teaching was set in stone. It appears, when taking Johannine literature into account, that the Spirit (i.e. Paraclete) was the only valid form of so-called ‘dogmatic, orthodox authority.’ We could have an accurate teaching, but it may need to be reinterpreted in light of new events, new heresies and new cultures. It may need to be reinterpreted to truly serve its intended purpose. John writes, placing greater emphasis on the Spirit, the “Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.”[17] He clearly states that it is the Spirit that will, in the end, have authority. Not some canonical text like the Bible, as the cessationists would have it, but the Spirit. In fact, Jesus seems to give the Spirit more authority than He gives to Himself. John further relates Jesus as saying, “[I]t is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you…and when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness…about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.”[18] Jesus clearly sees the Spirit as important in any form of religious experience. It is the Spirit alone that will help those who abide in Him to be able to discern what is sin and what is not. After telling His disciples that He is to leave (or be crucified) for the release of the Spirit (here it appears that Jesus died specifically for such a latter rain), He issues a most petrifying statement, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”[19] Jesus has said the unthinkable. If orthodoxy seeks some ancient higher truth, what has it to do with the Paraclete of John 14-16? If orthodoxy seeks to establish some single kērygma as truth, what has it to do with the ultimate truth: the Spirit? If orthodoxy seeks to find some single correct teaching, what must it do with the ‘future updates’ of John 16:12-14? Unfortunately, all along, orthodox kērygma had been an illusion. No such thing exists. We cannot set in stone a single kērygma, when the Spirit will constantly remain a source of new revelation. We cannot set in stone kērygma, when things that we cannot bear now will not be disclosed (to us); they will be disclosed to a future generation. It appears that Dunn is right in saying that the kērygmatic traditions are not authoritative in themselves; they are only authoritative when the Spirit permits them to be. If the Bible has canonical diversity, if the Bible contains incomplete revelation, why must we regard the Bible as the sole authority for anything and everything? Of course, I do not mean to say that the Bible is not authoritative; rather, I want to say that the Spirit should be held in esteem also. I do not deny the fact that the Scriptures have been inspired. However, I do not also deny the fact that we need the Spirit here and now, to help us uncover ancient truths, and to guide us with new revelations. If the Bible contains incomplete revelation, and if it contains diverse traditions, where lies authority? The answer is not as simple as most would like it to be. It appears that we must strike a balance between modern-Spirit and ancient-Spirit, so to speak. The ‘modern-Spirit’ is modern revelation; the ‘ancient-Spirit’ has to do with ancient revelation (i.e. the Scriptures, the Bible, etc.,). We must not preach anything contrary to ancient revelation (the Bible), nor must we mute the modern work of the Spirit. We should heed Paul’s words to the Thessalonians, “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil [prophecy].”[20] When speaking of orthodoxy, I propose the following definition: (a) A set of beliefs that are not contrary to the Faith, as evidenced by the Holy Scriptures; (b) A set of convictions that are in accordance with the Scriptures; and (c) A set of beliefs that allow room for the diversity that the NT itself allows. I wish to say that orthodoxy, then, must remain somewhat a vague term. It would refer to something that is biblical, but not to something that can be shared dogmatically by all Christians. Obviously, we will still have our “weak in the faith” vegetarian Christians. Heresy, on the other hand, must refer to something that falls outside ‘borderline orthodoxy’; something that can be quite concretely condemned. For example, homosexuality and adultery can be concretely labeled ‘heresy.’[21] Though such a definition allows room for abuse, I have not a better one yet to offer. When dealing with inspiration, we must ask ourselves what teaching is inspired. We ask ourselves this no matter what we think of doctrine or truth. We constantly seek to find ultimate truth; we long to seek God’s approval for our views, beliefs, and concerns. In other words, we seek to find out what is orthodox. We long to know if what we believe is correct. In fact, we long to know if it is the right way of ‘right-thinking’ (the literal translation of ‘orthodox’). As our brief study has shown, orthodoxy stands when diversity stands. The moment diversity is peeled off, the whole structure falls. The hand cannot exist without the head; nor can the feet move apart from the rest of the body. What, then, is the single orthodox belief that all Christians world-wide held? Does that even exist? Of course. Though it is not, in a modern sense, a creed in itself. The only strand that we can isolate is Christ Jesus. And when that is isolated, we cannot, with our highly exalted views of articulate theology, call that ‘kērygma.’ I would like to conclude with what Dunn said in his own summarization: [W]hen we ask in addition what both unifies and marks out the distinctiveness of first-century Christianity, the unifying strand narrows again and again to Christ alone. As soon as we move beyond that, as soon as we begin to attempt to fill it out in word or practice, diversity quickly becomes as prominent as unity. And the more we attempt to add to it, the more disagreement and controversy we find ourselves caught up in. In the final analysis then, the unity of first-century Christianity focuses (often exclusively) on Jesus the man now exalted, Christ crucified but risen.[22] Only Jesus Christ forms the centerpiece of anything and everything. All theology goes back to Him. Whether it be Paul, John, Luke or James, the undeniable strand is Jesus. In all of the controversy we have seen, though I have not been thorough, there cannot be a claim to a single correct teaching. No denomination should claim that. We have seen how Paul and James place different emphases on the meaning of faith, and we have seen how they both interpret the Scriptures differently. Every person and every author of the Bible had his own views, biases, and emphases. This, of course, should not be a cause for great concern; the authors were human after all. God speaks to us through humans, and though He clearly understands their biases, He allows diversity. If He is so unconcerned with it, why should we be so concerned with it? Of course, in all of this technical jargon, one must not forget that unity is also essential.[23] But that unity must exist when all the diverse members are working towards one, single, unifying goal. And that ‘goal’ is Christ Jesus. What then is heresy? “[T]he biggest heresy of all is the insistence that there is only one ecclesiastical obedience, only one orthodoxy.”[24] That is the greatest heresy. And, I would like to point out again, that I do maintain that there is an ‘orthodoxy,’ but it is, by far, far from being single! A Christian who worships on the Sabbath must not condemn another Christian who worships God on Sunday. Orthodoxy has room for both of them. None fall outside the realms of ‘right-thinking’ (as evidenced by the Scriptures in Romans 14). In conclusion, the Bible is inspired only when we allow the Spirit to allow the text to be inspiring. We must not separate text from Spirit; nor Spirit from text. Spiritual excessiveness was attacked by Paul in 1 Cor. 12-14 for its insistence on only Spirit. We must allow the Bible to judge the prophet and his words, but we must not make the Bible out to be a book that is sealed concerning revelation; revelations will never be completed so long as there is the Spirit spoken of in John 14-16. I do not think that the data offers any more a different interpretation. There is no single kērygma to be found, nor is there any such dogmatism found in Jesus. Jesus appeared to have disliked man-made traditions and dogmatic utterances.[25] I fully agree with George Fox when he said, interrupting a preacher, “It is not the Scripture, it is the Holy Spirit by which holy men of old gave forth the Scripture, by which religions…are to be tried.”[26] I believe, in light of all of this, that unity will be found. Unity will grow the more we recognize that diversity is a must for unity. The more we see the diversity in the Bible, the more we will be willing to accept slightly different beliefs and traditions; the more we will tolerate and the less we will judge. I hope that, in spite of the diversity, we will hold on to sound doctrine. And in issues regarding inspiration, how accepting we should be regarding different methods of interpreting passages of Scripture. (We must always keep the conflict between Paul and James in mind.) “Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Romans 14:19).[27]
[1] James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1977), 378. Dunn rightfully calls the vast diversity in early Christianity ‘canonical.’ For that it truly is. The majority of this section in this book follows what Dunn has to say throughout his book, Unity and Diversity. [2] Orthodoxy, “right belief.” [3] Kērygma (khrugma) = G. proclamation, preaching, announcing. In texts such as Khrugmata Petrou, the sermons of Kefa (Peter) are collected into a homogenous body that thereafter becomes Peter’s official doctrine, or his teaching, which constitutes Mikheyev’s license to translate kērygma as teaching. Perhaps didachē (didaxh) would be the more appropriate term. (–jhs) [4] Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 2. [5] Ibid., 13-16. I have followed Dunn somewhat liberally. [6] Ibid,. 21. [7] Ibid., 22. [8] Ibid., 48. [9] Ibid., 26. [10] NRSV [11] Genesis 15:16 NRSV [12] ESV [13] I must call this form ‘dogmatic mono-orthodoxy.’ A claim that only one single view of what is orthodox is acceptable. [14] Ibid., 32. Italics are in the original. [15] In the original Greek, we can translate phrases like “faith in Christ” as “faith of Christ.” Thus, we may be justified by Christ’s faith, not only by our faith in Him. See Galatians 2:15-16 and Romans 3:22, 26. The text reads for Gal. 2:16 dia pisteos Iesou Christou; which means, when literally translated, “through faith of Jesus Christ.” Jesus Christ is genitive. We can also take into account James’ statement. [16] Ibid., 77. Italics in the original. [17] John 14:26 NRSV [18] 16:7-11 NRSV [19] 16:12-13 NRSV [20] 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 NRSV. Word in brackets is mine. I think that this may be the proper meaning of Paul’s warning. [21] Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; Matt. 5:28; Ex. 20:14; Luke 18:20, etc,. [22] Ibid., 371-372. Italics in the original. [23] Jesus’ prayer in John 17 reveals that clearly! In fact, Paul also emphasized unity (Romans 12:16; Eph. 4:3; Col. 3:14). [24] Ibid., 366. [25] Matt. 23:23, 7:11, 15:3; Mark 7:8. [26] Quoted in James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 175. [27] NRSV
|
||||
|
||||
