Canon

But what is the precise relationship between canonicity and authority? Does a book have
authority because it is in the canon, or is it in the canon because it has authority? This is an
especially important question for evangelicals, who distinguish sharply between Scripture
and tradition, and base their beliefs finally on the authority of Scriptures. But if the
Scriptures’ authority is based on canonicity, and if canonicity is based on tradition, then the
distinction between the authority of Scripture and of tradition is a false one and our position
is untenable. The relationship between canonicity and authority is therefore very important.


Canon: A collection of writings which define or
regulate the beliefs and conduct of a particular community


So here’s a crazy idea.
What about if we take the canon of scripture as the texts which belong to the community of God, ie. the triune community of Father Son and Spirit, in which God binds and commits himself to act in a way faithful to these texts. We can then say that a canon is based on the recognition of a community. The scriptures then are our canon when we are drawn into that community, and are universally THE canon as we wait for that community and rule to fill the entire cosmos.

I prefer this concept of canon because it doesn’t need to posit a particular special quality, or a particular mode of origin for the texts.
The canon is Holy Scripture inasmuch asGod is continually faithful to it.

Of course, this is a tricksy way of avoiding all sorts of questions about the canon.



A similar question, if we take a functional view of canonicity, is whether our churches have the entire scriptures as canon. That is, if large parts of our scriptures are never read, contemplated, preached on, reflected on in our church community, are they really canonical for us? Or should we redefine canonicity as ‘a collection of writings that are defended against outsiders and otherwise ignored’ ?