Robert on the Canon of Scripture

(Mike's Note: This is something I've been meaning to write on for quite a while. Robert and I disagree on many points, including the divinity of Jesus and the divine inspiration behind the scriptures. However, as big a fan of C.S. Lewis as I am, Robert and I agree on the validity, or lack thereof, of this classic argument. Maybe I'll say more in the comments, but what follows are Robert's thoughts.)

I've been reading The da Vinci Code and you know what?  It's got me thinking.  One of the things it's got me thinking is that C.S. Lewis is full of crap when he says I can't choose which parts of the Jesus story I want to believe.  If Dan Brown's book shows us anything, it's that the bible is one subjective collection of stories.  Whether you believe it all or none of it, you can't argue with the fact that someone, some person or people, decided what would be in it.  They chose to include some stuff, and chose to exclude some stuff. If that's so, why can't I choose to believe some parts and not others? But Lewis tells me I have no choice.  That Christ was either the son of God or a lunatic.  Nonsense.  That would only be the case if Christ got to decide everything that ended up in the Bible and I don't believe he did.  Some Gomer from 150 AD (or CE) got to decide.  So if it's alright with you, I'll just go on believing Jesus was a wondrous guide and teacher and leave the deity for others to worship.  And if it's not alright, I will anyway.  Sorry Mr. Lewis.

Comments

[kyle]

one thing stands out mike...the writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit, so in a sense Father/Son/HS did decide waht was going to be in the bible.

[bob hyatt]

On what basis do you choose what to believe and not believe? What appeals to you and what doesn't? "I don't like that Jesus is recorded as saying that therefore, I choose not to believe He said it."

hmmmm... I don't know if I can buy that.

And on what basis is He a wondrous guide and teacher? On the basis of the snippets of text left over after our redaction?

I think there's more to Lewis' argument than you guys are giving credit for.

[Mike]

2 quick comments already... I think this will be a great conversation.

Kyle - I agree with you... but Robert doesn't. He's an atheist. So, for him, your point is moot.

Bob - I'll let Robert speak for himself. Keep in mind that he and I don't care for the argument for completely different reasons (sort of).

More later.

[robert]

Mike is correct that we probably don't like the argument for different reasons. My point is this: I believe the Bible is a man-made collection of stories, tales, allegories etc. that covers a lot of ideas over the past 6,000 years. The same way many Christians don't observe or adhere to many of the Old Testament rules, laws and stories because they do not find them relevant (owning slaves, observing the Sabbath, something in Leviticus about Pork or leather or something or other) I believe the whole book is a collection of ideas. Many Christ-Followers will say they adhere to the New Testament rules but not the Old. From my perspective, as I do not believe any of it to be divinely inspired, what exactly is the difference between the Old and the New? The Da Vinci Code makes the point that the Bible was not a document received from heaven via fax or Fed Ex. It is undeniably a man-made collection. So if someone decided to leave parts in or take parts out, that should certainly allow me to do the same. So I am inspired by the idea "the meek will inherit the earth" and not so inspired by walking on water because I don't believe it happened. In other words, the stories in the Bible that make Jesus David Copperfield in Birkenstocks are less relevant to me than the larger ideas referring to how we should try to live our lives.
I think Jesus would have said "never mind the walking on water, listen to my words" then again what do I know.
However, there are ideas I like from the New because the ideas resonate with me. On what basis? On my basis. That is my point exactly. I feel I have a personal connection to these notions espoused by Jesus. I love the idea of Grace, of a love that must not necessarily "earned" but is bestowed, regardless of "merit". I love the idea of "Love Thy Neighbour", of "a child will lead them" etc. You get the drift and anyone reading this blog is far more familiar with the Scriptures than I. I don't believe anyone can tell me that I must accept the whole story to be allowed access to parts of it. I am not arguing that God loves me whether I believe or not because I don't believe there is a God. I am saying that Jesus' notion of universal brotherhood is open to us all, even me.

[ron]

Robert I tend to be the thorn in the side of the body or community of friends I hang out with. Many are very literal when it comes to the Bible, everything sort of etched in granite, a heavyily secured file on the hard drive that can not be touched...no editing, no cut and paste...if you know what I mean. I used to be that way until he demolished everything I had built with my building blocks of wisdom. The encounter with him sort of shone some light, on what was important. The following, just tagging along became more important than the believing.
I still struggle with the stories of feeding the 5000. I mean we had folks over for dinner a couple of nites ago, we had a week to organize and just barely pulled it off. Jesus pulls it off in a moments notice with hand outs. But the reality is it's a story, maybe even a metaphor for a deeper hidden truth. What if...Jesus, in this assembly of different faiths, races , languages, broke barriers between people, and actually got them to share, food and lives. Would this not also be a miracle then...and even more so today. So is my interpretation out to lunch...am I heritic...a blasphemer.
I'm going out on limb here, but for me when it comes to biblical truth...I believe it all, but in certain degrees if that makes any sense. The things I really believe, it is like I have received through a deeper revelation...sort of like light triggering some soert of gene into the on position, and I know because I know. And then there is the stuff I struggle with, that is more mystery, but as creazy as it may sound, I can accept it as truth until revelation comes some day.
I know this is a little off topic, but just wondering Robert...do you believe in prayer, or the Holy Spirit. Any way, Cool to have met you in this place Robert. Sometimes truth is found in hanging out with friends, conversations at Starbucks... continued blessings to the both of you on your journey for truth.

[David]

I think this is a relevant discussion that many,if not most, believers are unwilling to have. That we'd have this conversation at the encouragement of an atheist is even more amazing - good on ya, Robert.

I think the question for me is this; have we as a faith heritage claimed more for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself? And I think the answer is probably yes. Now it gets tricky because my options are fewer. Now, in fact, it is a matter of faith. Whether I do or do not take the christian/hebrew scriptures as inspired and inerant down to the word is up to a faith choice on my part.

I think once you/if you beleive that scripture is in its entirety inspired by God in the theological sense then Lewis was right. You have limited choices (and I think while CS Lewis was writing the prevailing view on scripture culturally was still a concession that the Bible was the Word of God). If you do not believe, then Robert you are entirely right. Most arguments assume some unspoken a priori propositions, and this is Lewis' - that the source of our extant stories about Jesus of Nazareth are in the Bible, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God, every word in the original language (and then chosen as canon later on) is true.

In terms of epistemology I think most Christians are happy with drawing their knowledge from the scriptures, happy in that security. It's when we break out of that sola scriptura constraint that we fear all hell breaking lose in our thinking, we worry about excommunication or being shunned as anathema.

But I wonder if there is not room in there for Robert to be right in his assertion that the Bible is a book written by man, and for Lewis to be right that it's also a book written by God. What seperates the two is simply a point of faith. For too long we've closed our eyes to the problematic issue of canon. Which is, among other things, one of the reasons I became a Christian existentialist on this journey. At a certain point ALL the evidence seems to point in the other direction and faith is sometimes an exercise of the will in the presence of problematic things like this. But not a denial of them. Denial is bad for everyone.

Re-reading this I feel I have written in circles. Anyways, thanks for keeping us honest, Robert.

[robert]

Ron,
I can't say I believe in the Holy Spirit. I don't pray though I believe there are mental and physical, even spiritual benefits to meditating which I do. I believe in Karma in a weird way in that I don't believe the universe rewards you for being good or generous but that good attracts good. You attract good things to yourself when you are in a generous frame of mind. Negativity breeds negativity. Anger begets anger. That sort of thing.
David, my issue with Lewis is his claim that unless I believe the deity, the teachings of Jesus are somehow off-limits to me and I just don't accept that.

[Mike]

...and this is as good a place as any to throw in my 2 cents worth on the argument.

First, let me say that I know that some have found it compelling. And that's good. However, here's my beef. It's a non-argument. It presupposes one side.

Let's back up a little. I happen to agree with Lewis... but I've already decided Jesus is who he said he is. But what about Robert? Robert has decided Jesus was not God. So, are we then saying that Robert cannot embrace any of Jesus' teaching? In effect, that is what we are saying.

The argument only makes sense to those who have already decided in favour of the divine nature of Christ. We Christians then sit around and nod our heads and say "Yeah, Lewis. You tell 'em!"

Doesn't work for me any more.

[ron cole]

Mike and Robert...
"But what about Robert? Robert has decided Jesus was not God. So, are we then saying that Robert cannot embrace any of Jesus' teaching? In effect, that is what we are saying."

Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but I think Robert can embrace Jesus teachings with out coming to terms with His deity. I mean if we read the gospels, we are taking a huge step to think that the disciples, " Got " who he was 100% of the time. Even when Jesus asked the disciples the million dollar question, " who am I ?", Peter is the only one that gets it. And then 2 seconds later, doesn't get it. Do you really think it is about just believing? I think Jesus wanted them to have a greater sense of belonging...and in that place, a greater truth would be revealed...and belief would grow.

[Mike]

I'm with you, Ron. Which is why I think the argument is bogus.

BTW, in a semi-related twist I just came across this article. (Of course, here I'm speaking to the Christians in the crowd.)

[David]

Robert - I was trying to agree with you, guess I got sidetracked. Let me try again: from Lewis's perspective he assumes you are taking whay you know and do not know about Jesus from the Bible, he further assumes you and he share a similar ground on what the Bible is - inspired or not. So from IF his assumptions were right, then scripture does not seem to allow for many choices.

But you are coming at it from a different angle, as do a great many who read Lewis, and yes, I think you DO have the choice you've expressed. For you, that choice is consistent becasue your starting point is different.

I guess I was just trying to point out the a priori in Lewis's argument, which at least makes him self-consisten. Remove that foundation and his argument has holes. That's all I was trying to say. I get bogged down in verbage sometimes. Maybe it's the cold medication.

I also like what Ron Cole has to say.

[chris]

I think an important tidbit to remember is that the writers of the Gospels weren't attempting to create canon or write a "bible". They were being very selective when they included (and excluded) what they did. There was an audience, a history, an immediacy (at least perhaps for Mark and Matthew) and a context. The literary import of all the accounts is dynamic, but not conspiratorial. It doesn't appear, through study at least, that the writers made any attempt to mislead by inclusion or omission. They certainly had an agenda, but 2000 years ago, Dan Brown wasn't invented yet.

Picking and choosing from the Gospels is like picking and choosing from Shakespeare or Homer, Fitzgerald, or Yancey. Sure, you can do it, but why would you edit their stories?

I believe that the Holy Spirit did contribute heavily to the construction of canon, epistles, OT, NT, parables, wisdom and history, etc, but people contributed as well. And I don't believe that they did it to mislead, but to present. Here's the narrative...decide for yourself.

[robert]

Chris, I'm not suggesting it was done to mislead. Just that it was done. Someone had to pick what was in and what was out. Therefore, the whole text is not necessarily suspect, but subjective. And yes, it's been a slow week (that's what happens when assistants get the flu - not much gets done). Blogs probably would never have been invented if assistants never got sick.

[Glenn]

As far as the gospels go I like what Chris has to say. IHe gives a nice summation of how I understand the gospels to have been constructed. Each pinting a portrait of this Jesus they knew from a different perspective. (BTW this was widely accepted as the way to write early greco-roman biography, not as we understand biography as some dipassionate objective recorder of facts [as if there is such a thing!])

The wider question of canon though needs to be cleared up. One of the grat comforts tome is that not one person sat down and decidedd what was in and what was out. It wasn't even a committee or a great council that did it. It was a process of the community of faith deciding over the first two centuries what writings they found to be authoratative and which were not.

On Lewis, I think I must be the only person in the world who doesn't like his writing. It bores me, and yes that includes the Chronicles. Frankly Lewis spoke a lot of crap, in fact almost as much as the people who now claim he was one of them, when he quite patently didn't fit any Christian mold whatsoever at all. Having said that there is a particular logic to His argument in this case.

Everything said above is true, that at some point faith provides the answer to the dilemma and that Jesus called (and calls) many to follow him before they have much of a clue why or what for.
It has to be said that to accept some parts of Jesus teaching as good, helpful, inspired whatever but to reject others as fanciful or wrong makes no sense. Particularly in that the core of his message is that he really is the son of God, that this messiah they were looking for has turned up in him looking nothing like they expect, but that is all we are getting.

To ignore this or disregard this is to truncate the message of Jesus to a list of "How to's". We can't have the How to's without the why (and indeed the how). Because if the why is a lie or wrong then the rest of it can make no sense. Why give up your life for others, if there is nothing redemptive in it? Why prefer other over yourself if there is no final goal, sonething greater than somply a bunch of humans and animals woandering around on this earth. Why care for an environment that will last as long as I will regardless of how I treat it? Without the why Jesus teaching on the rest of this stuff makes no sense. Like Lewis said he is either a lunatic or something much worse.

[Glenn]

Sorry about the length of previous comment, I got on a roll!

[chris]

On the canon, I can supply some resources, but the order of books was in a state of canon well before the end of the second century. Early church and secular historians contribute generously in support. There were several variations, but by and large what Nicea did was normalize one canon from many variants ranging in major and minor order. So if we are to blame a Gomer for the order of the NT, we have to look at it from a larger scope and think in terms of an evolving canon which started when the first writings began to circulate.

There were lots of Gomers, in actuality, which doesn't change the fact that in the end there was the final Gomer.

[Mike]

Glenn and I have had this conversation before.

We can't have the How to's without the why (and indeed the how).

This is where we disagree. I'm glad Glenn has phrased it this way because I think this is the crux of the matter. I believe that the How To's can stand on their own merit. (And I think that's what Robert is saying too.) "Love your neighbour" is a good idea regardless of who is suggesting it.

Keep in mind what I'm doing here is trying to think like someone who rejects the divinity of Christ. We must try (as much as it is possible) to get out from behind the lenses we are looking through. To repeat what I said earlier, it's not so much that I think Lewis is wrong. It's that if I approach the argument from the standpoint of an atheist, it's meaningless.

[Glenn]

I see what you are saying Mike, but ...

we all need some sort of value system to make decisions like "love your neighbour." I am saying that the only one that makes any sense of the radical how to's of jesus is the value system of the cross.

[robert]

Heaven or no heaven, I am going to go with "Love Thy Neighbour" anyway, for the hell of it.

(Get it? "The hell of it"... Get it?)

[gord]

I know I'm late to the party, but my recollection of Lewis' point was that he was making the argument that Jesus claimed several times that he was the son of God which must bring you to a decision point ... either Jesus was correct "or he was a lunatic or much worse". I think that's the point Lewis makes when he says that you can't choose which parts of the Jesus story to believe ... If you choose that he was not the Son of God, that does not necessarily invalidate all of his teaching (and I don't think Lewis implied that). But it does call into question either Jesus' integrity or his sanity. One thing Jesus never intended to leave us was the option to pass Him off as simply a great teacher. (In fact, there is an important symantic difference here between "teachings" and "story", where the assumption is that "teachings" is about morals and recomendations for living, whereas the "story" is about Jesus as Lord and Saviour).

[wilsonian]

You know what I love? I love coming here to find a discussion like this going on, completely bathed in love and respect for one another. I love that 20 comments later, the overriding goal is still to understand each other.

I have nothing to contribute to the actual conversation... just had to say how wonderful this is :)

[robert]

If I am told I my only two options are that Jesus was either a deity or a lunatic?
Fine, then he was a lunatic with ideas that speak to me and inspire me and make me want to be a better person.

[chris]

Of course, to quote CS Lewis, Jesus was either the Savior or a Demon from Hell. Only a demon from hell would dare lead billions far from the heart of God as Jesus has most certainly done were he not God himself (and thus, not demonic).

[Christop]

Most atheists don't believe in demons either though, do they?

[robert]

Of course, I can't speak for all atheists but I didn't until Cheney took office.