Psalm 46
Luke 19:1-10
Today
is reformation Sunday when we celebrate and remember how we became the
protestant church. But I thought I would
start by answering another of the many questions that came to us in our
theological panel conversations and that is about the Canon in particular. The Old Testament had been set for some time
by Jewish practice, tradition and decisions.
But the Western Christian Canon (which includes different books than
what is included by the Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Christian sects, was
decided over time. In the early church,
the letters or Epistles circulated around as distinct letters but by the end of
the 1st century were in some form of collection. The first suggestion of a Christian Canon
came about 140AD by Marcion. However,
for about 250 years after that there was a great deal of arguing over what
should be considered canon and which books would be considered heresy. Origen
of Alexandria pretty much used the same 27 books that we now consider the New
Testament. So by the year 200, the major
writings that we still consider canon today were the central books being used
by most Christians. But the first really
big and definitive decision about that was made in 393 at the Synod of Hippo
Regius in North Africa. St. Augustine
headed this council as well as two others that followed it and considered the
canon pretty much closed at that point. The
book of revelation was the most contested book and in the end, the belief that
it was genuinely written by John seems to be at least one of the predominant
reason it was included in the Canon. As
we know though, with the Protestant reformation, the canon was reevaluated. For example, Luther moved some books that the
Catholic church included in their canon into what we now call the Apocrypha
which is not considered part of the Protestant canon. What is interesting though is that as a
result of the Protestant Reformation, various denominations, including the
Catholic church, revisited what was considered Canon. Council of Trent in 1546 decided canon for
the Roman Catholic church. Presbyterians
decided it around 1647. The response,
again, to why some books were included and some weren’t is a long one, each
book considered and included or excluded for different reasons, but the main
reasons for why a book was included or excluded were centered around three major
things: practice, or what had been used most frequently and liturgically, theology
and politics. For example: Luther wanted
to remove from canon several books that included specifically Hebrews, James,
Jude and Revelation. The reason was
these books seem to argue against the basic protestant reformation ideas of
sola scriptura and sola fide (Scripture alone and faith alone for
salvation). Luther wanted them removed
for these theological reasons. But for
political reasons, namely that he could not get support on this from his
followers for excluding these books, as well as practice – these books were
well used, well loved and strongly appreciated, he was not able to remove these
books even into the Apocrypha. For
Protestants, the stated criteria for inclusion in the canon were the following:
1.
They needed to be of Apostolic Origin —
attributed to and based upon the teachings of the first-generation
apostles (or people close to them).
2.
They needed to have Universal Acceptance —
acknowledged by all major Christian communities towards the
end of the 4th century (as well as accepted canon by Jewish authorities for
the Old Testament).
3.
They needed to be in regular Liturgical Use —
read publicly and in worship with some consistency.
4.
They needed to have a Consistent
Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other
accepted Christian writings.
The
parishioner who asked about canon asked very specifically about the gospel of
Thomas and why it was not included in the Canon (and it has been excluded from
early on). It was not included for several reasons: First, most scholars
question its authorship and don’t believe it actually was written by the
disciple Thomas. Second, it is a list of
sayings rather than a story like the other gospels. Third, many of the sayings are gnostic in
their theology, which was considered a big heresy at the time canon was being
discussed. And finally, most scholars
believe many of the sayings written were things unlikely to have been said by a
Jewish Rabbi at the time, in particular, again, the sayings that have a gnostic
aspect to them. If you are unsure what
Gnosticism is and are curious about it, we can discuss it at another time.
The
point here is that there were many writings about faith. There still are. And so criteria were set for what would be
considered scripture and what would not, and these criteria were based again on practice,
theology, origin, and, realistically, politics.
So
that’s the answer to the question that came in.
But what does this have to do with the reformation? Or today’s scriptures?
What it
has to do with the reformation is that a big and important piece of the
reformation was an intense look once again at what was to be considered
canon. What it has to do with today’s
lesson is that the reformation is a reminder, as were the long debates about
what was canon, that we are imperfect people on an imperfect but holy
path. We search for wholeness, we seek
to follow Jesus. But the best we can
hope is that in community we do better than as individuals, and that through
time the Holy Spirit continues to speak to us and continues to move us into
deeper wisdom, understanding and closeness with God.
Jesus came for the
lost. He said this again and again, but he also showed it in his choice of
people he picked to visit, to be with, to heal, to transform. People were unhappy that he took the time to
be with Zacchaeus. And people are
unhappy that our churches are not yet perfect and are not make of perfect
people. But that is who Jesus came to be
with. Real people, on a journey of
creating community that strives to follow Christ: US. That does mean, however,
that we can’t stop being people striving to do better. Reformed and always reforming. Or rather, protesting and always protesting. The Protestant reformation was about
protesting, about changing what is. It
was about standing up against the status quo of the time and insisting on
justice for those who are poorer, for those who are underprivileged, for those
being used and abused, in the church but also beyond these walls. To quote Rev. Michael Piazza, “The church
always has been at its best when it has acted as Jesus did, consistently and
persistently, using our energy and strength on behalf of the poor and those who
have been pushed to the margins of life. Now, you may agree that this is what
the church should do and that it is a great idea to spend the next year
protesting, but what about YOU?” Are we
still doing what it is we are called to do?
Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the church in the United States
(and as I’ve mentioned before, this is not a small decline. It is sharp, it is strong, and if predictions
are correct, there won’t be a Presbyterian church in another 15 years) is not a
condemnation from God on our stuckness again.
The prophets warned against this again and again, challenging us to be
more loving and more giving and warning that if we weren’t, we would become
irrelevant and would therefore die. The
Protestant reformation challenged what was happening in the Catholic church at
the time because it was becoming corrupt.
What is interesting is that while it ended with a split, it also changed
the Catholic Church. It reformed them as
well as the church came to see its own sin of the time and realized it had to
change. The larger Christian church is
dying again, and I think it, too, is an indictment in many ways on how internally
focused we have become once again. We have
become once again about serving each other.
But that is not what we have been called to do. And I believe the only way the church will
survive is for us to go back to what the protestant reformation was about, or
to go back farther to what the prophets preached about, and once again confront
the injustice of caring for ourselves over others.
In today’s story, it was not enough for Zacchaeus to
just talk with Jesus. His is a story of
transformation as all of our stories must be.
And it was not just the transformation of Zacchaeus. The man others knew only as “the tax
collector” or “the sinner” was called by name, and he was changed by it. But his change did not stop with
himself. Because he returned the money,
because his behavior changed, his transformation meant the transformation of
the larger community as well. Those who
had been oppressed by him, used by him, taken advantage by him were now freed
too. Our transformation has to look like
this as well.
The question is,
always, when we come to see who Jesus is, are we willing to change our
lives? To change what feels “comfortable
and easy”? Are we willing to let go of
what we think we want, what we think will make us happy, and instead to be open
to the path Jesus wants us to go, to follow in the way, in the path of a man
who ends up dead before he ends up resurrected?
Does our faith, does our encounter with the living Christ make a
difference for us? The question on
Reformation Sunday is: are we willing to give up what is comfortable and easy
as a church and as individuals to truly follow Jesus? Are we willing to step out to hear what the
people of God, God’s children, all of God’s people really need to experience
God’s love, God’s grace and God’s presence in this place at this time?
The debates over
canon, the protestant reformation, the current church crisis: these are times
ripe for challenge of who we are and who we are called to be. Who does God call us to be? That is the question that we are constantly
called to ask as we continue to seek to be a church that is reformed and always
reforming. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment