Canon Fodder

Knowing me to be a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, whose birthday was just celebrated on January 6^th, you'd think that I just can't wait to see all the new TV shows about him that are soon to be released. But I am fairly sure that we will not be seeing the same sleuth that we read of in the 4 novels and 56 short stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was not a fan of the Netflix series in which Dr. Watson recruited children to fight supernatural threats because Holmes was too strung out on drugs. And I am not sure if I will enjoy the series that gives him a heretofore unknown daughter, despite the fact that I like the actor who will portray Holmes. And I really don't see the point of the one that is all about Watson fighting Moriarty alone after the presumed death of Holmes. The friendship of the detective and the doctor is at the heart of the stories. It would be like doing a Muppet movie with Miss Piggy but not Kermit. It's their chemistry we love.

Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character in film and TV. At least 72 actors have played the great detective but, as you can imagine, not all did a good job. And even before Doyle's death in 1930, fans have written their own Sherlock Holmes stories. And this fan fiction has been a mixed lot. Very few manage to deliver the whole package that we find in the originals: the recognizable characters, the sharp dialogue, the intriguing plots and the dramatic moments that will forever live in our memories. And frequently the new stories just seem like an excuse to put Holmes in a romance or put him up against a supernatural foe or have him solve the Jack the Ripper murders or have him travel in time. Occasionally the author does manage to pull it off and get the feel of the characters and Watson's narration and the atmosphere right. But authors like Laurie King, Nicholas Meyer, Lindsey Faye, Ellery Queen and Michael and Molly Hardwick are outnumbered by mediocre writers, who have more enthusiasm than skill. Usually such pastiches disappoint because they fail to capture the true spirit of Sherlock Holmes.

Our sermon suggestion question is “Why are some books not in the Bible?” By this I take it that the writer means, not the Apocrypha which is found between the Old and New Testaments in Roman Catholic and some Anglican Bibles, but other ancient books, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Assumption of Moses, 3^rd and 4^th Maccabees, etc. Scholars classify these books as pseudepigrapha, that is, books written by people who adopted the name of a prophet or apostle as a pseudonym to give their works authority. These books consist of retellings of Bible stories with a lot of legendary material added, apocalypses with lots of extra details not found in the Bible, as well as those banned gospels that the media, including You Tubers, makes such a fuss about.

Why didn't they make it into the Bible? It's like asking why the script for the 2010 film in which Sherlock Holmes fights dinosaurs was not included in copies of The Complete Sherlock Holmes. It's not only because it is awful. Even very good and fun pastiches like The Seven Percent Solution aren't included, because they weren't written by Doyle and they were done much later than the originals. When it comes to Biblical pseudepigrapha we know they are not as old because in many cases the language is different. All of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. If the oldest copy we have of a supposed Old Testament book is in Greek, we know it was written much later.

In most cases we can scientifically determine how old a manuscript is. We can also look at when the work was first mentioned or quoted by other writers. If the earliest mention of a gospel comes 100 or 200 years after the time of Jesus, it was not written by an apostle or his secretary or close associate. The 4 canonical gospels were all written before the end of the first century, Mark first and John last.

Then there is the subject matter of other would-be gospels, acts, epistles and apocalypses. They are not merely stories about Adam and Eve, Moses, or Jesus. They are very much like The Seven Percent Solution or Young Sherlock Holmes, in that they are origin stories. They are efforts by “fans” to give the untold origins of certain elements in the original stories, explaining or filling in details never provided in the canon of writings. (BTW, “canon” comes from the Greek word for a straight rod or measuring stick. It came to mean a standard or rule.) The two pastiches I mentioned give different explanations of Holmes' obsession with crime and with Professor Moriarty. A lot of the pseudo-scriptures do the same, giving us, for instance, fascinating new details of Mary's or Jesus' childhoods, and answering questions that generations of both believers and unbelievers have asked. They are obviously not equal to the originals but are dependent on the reader having a prior knowledge of them. This makes them read very differently from the originals. When C.S. Lewis, while he was an atheist, first read the gospels in the original Greek, he was struck by their artlessness. As an expert in classical literature, Lewis realized that the gospels were not well-written enough to be myths; they were closer to reporting. In a pseudo-gospel you are very aware of the hand of the writer in shaping what is said and done by the characters. They feel crafted by a storyteller, with none of the odd details one sees in real life. (Compare Mark 14:51-52. Nothing more is made of this person or incident. It doesn't help the story; it's just something that happened.)

The pseudepigrapha usually have a very clear agenda, one that goes way beyond the canonical gospels' purpose to spread the good news about Jesus. Some are pious fictions, written to defend the truth of the gospel by, oddly enough, making stuff up. Other gospels, like that purporting to be by Thomas, simply use Jesus as a spokesperson for the author's own religious ideas. Many promote Gnosticism, which held that the physical universe is evil and that only that which is non-physical is good. This contradicts the Bible which says that God made the universe and pronounced it good. (Genesis 1:31)

Still, who decided which books made it into the Bible and which didn't? It was not a single person or a small group but generations of believers. As Christians spread the gospel, they quoted certain books that they felt had authority when it came to the life and teachings of Jesus. They did this so much that if all the ancient documents of the New Testament were suddenly destroyed, we could still reconstruct them all except for 11 verses, using the quotations of them found in the writings of the early church fathers, the successors to the apostles. That's how revered they were and how authoritative they were considered, as well as how thoroughly they were studied and relied upon.

At first, there was no official list of the books of the New Testament. Ironically the first such list was compiled by Marcion, a wealthy heretic who set up a rival network of churches. He rejected the Old Testament entirely, saying the creator God of the Jews was evil. Only the God and Father of Jesus was good. Consequently his New Testament consisted of an edited version of Luke and ten of Paul's letters. This caused orthodox Christians to argue for the acceptance of the other gospels and the Old Testament. This in turn led to a discussion of which books should be accepted as authoritative when it comes to Christian faith and practice.

Of course there were other good Christian books that were also read and treasured: The Shepherd of Hermes, the First letter of Clement, the letters of Ignatius and more. So why weren't they included in the scriptures? Well, if Marcion's abbreviated, anti-semitic New Testament caused Christians to consider what books ought to be added to the canon, the persecutions under Diocletian forced them to decide what books should be subtracted. The emperor decreed that Christians were to turn over their sacred books to be burned. All the churches had to decide which books to keep (and hide) and which writings were of lesser importance and so could be surrendered to the authorities. Again, by this time there was no official canon of the New Testament but a general agreement emerged that the books to be saved were all 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, 1^st Peter and 1^st John. Some had doubts about the letter to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2^nd and 3^rd John, 2^nd Peter and Revelation, but eventually they too made the grade. So other popular Christian books were sacrificed instead to mollify the emperor.

What criteria were used to decide which books were considered sacred? The first was whether the writer was an apostle or close associate of an apostle, like, for instance, Luke. This is the reason that the 4 gospels and Paul's letters were recognized early in the process. In fact, the current arrangement of the New Testament pretty much follows the order in which the books were accepted into the canon.

A second criterion was whether the book in question was orthodox. “Orthodox” is just Greek for “right teaching.” Christians weighed in on whether the books being discussed were in harmony with the faith received from the apostles. This faith was summarized in creeds which were used in teaching, baptism and other liturgies. So books which rejected the idea that there is only one God, or that rejected Jesus as being both fully human and fully divine, or that rejected the teaching that we are saved by Jesus' death on the cross, were in turn rejected by most Christians.

Another criterion was the antiquity of the book. People back then may not have had the ability to carbon-date books but they were literate and they knew which books went all the way back to the early days of the church. This dovetailed with the final criterion, that of usage. Books that were and that had always been widely quoted by the church, and that were used in catechisms and liturgies, were given more weight.

Contrary to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, and You Tubers ignorant of history, the first church council of Nicea did not create the canon of scripture in 325 AD. The process, as we have said, had already been underway for a couple of hundred years. The council merely affirmed the resulting consensus. And while it was pretty close to what we have today, it wouldn't be completely the same in all parts of the church, scattered all over the known world, for a couple hundred more years. So it was not decided hastily or by one person like the emperor. Councils were called, positions were debated, votes were taken. The voices of Christians and churches from east and west, north and south, were heard.

And the voice of the true Spirit of God was recognized in the books that eventually were collected, copied and distributed as the Bible. It was the holy and loving voice of the Lord who offers forgiveness and healing to those who respond to him. It was the voice of Jesus who challenged popular notions and the status quo rather than rubber-stamped them, as most religions tend to do. It was the voice of the God who audaciously acted to save his creatures at the cost of his own blood. That was the standard, the rule, the canon that the books of the Bible had to meet. You can read the ones that didn't make it online and decide for yourself. To me they mostly read like bad fan fiction. To those who do not merely see but who observe them, the differences between the books that resonated with the vast majority of Christians as getting the God revealed in Jesus Christ right and the ones that didn't get him quite right are, you might say, elementary.

First preached on January 10, 2010. It has been revised and updated. 

Shred the Old, Bless the New

She was always smiling—except when she had forgotten that she had just eaten. She would come up to the nurses' station and ask where her food was. If we gave her something to eat, she would be just as likely to forget and come back with the same complaint: “Where is my food?” I found that it was best to tell her she was early for the next meal, which was just a couple of hours away. Her other inquiry was whether anything was going on right now. We'd tell her about whatever activities the therapists were doing and she'd wheel her chair to Bingo or crafts or singing or cards. Usually she'd just sit and watch but that was OK. She was 103. Her birthday was the day after the first of the year. Maybe that's why, whenever anyone would pass her, whatever day it actually was, she'd wish them a Happy New Year.

And she was right. Our designation of one specific day as the start of a succession of months is arbitrary. The Jewish New Year or Rosh Hashanah takes place in autumn. The Christian liturgical year begins with Advent. Because the Islamic calendar is lunar and about 10 days shorter than the solar year, over time the Muslim or Hijiri New Year migrates throughout the seasons. These calendars are built around major events in their respective faiths. But you don't have to wait until a specific day to start a project or make a change or do something new. You can just get to it. Or, if you really have to wait for someone else to act or something else to happen first, you can at least make preparations.

But excluding creation, no beginning is ever without antecedents. There is always that which came before. It may be good. It may be bad. It may have had both good and bad effects. Whatever it was, you have to deal with it.

If what happened in the past was good, then you should give thanks to God for it and build on it. If some past event or events resulted in both good and bad consequences, you should reflect on that and see what wisdom can be gained from it. Ask yourself: if a similar situation should arise, is there a way to maximize the good that comes from it and minimize the evil?

If something bad has happened in the past, you may have to clean up the aftermath. Or, if you can't do that, you may have to work around its fallout. You might have to make peace with it: acknowledge that it happened and then move on the best you can.

If you had a hand in what was bad—if your actions encouraged or allowed it, if you are responsible either by what you did or didn't do—then you should repent. This doesn't necessarily mean making a big emotional scene. It means, first, regretting and turning away from the evil. It means, to use Paul's metaphor, crucifying and burying the old you. (Romans 6:3-11) That sounds drastic but Paul is not only thinking of the death of our past but also of our resurrection, spiritual and physical, where the best of a person, who they were created to be, is restored by God's Spirit.

Repentance also means telling God that you're sorry for what you did, as well as telling that to anyone who was affected. The good thing about doing this, though it's one of the hardest parts of repentance, is knowing that God truly forgives you. (1 John 1:9)

Repentance also means actively turning towards the good, not only internally but externally as well. It means orienting yourself towards Jesus and becoming more like him. It means opening yourself to his Holy Spirit, that he may purify your soul, illumine your mind and set your heart on fire for him.

But not everything bad in your life is your fault. We are social creatures and what one person or one group does affects others. The problem is that if you had no hand in some awful event, you may also feel powerless to respond to it. You may complain about it but your complaint may seem to be like just blowing off steam. It soon evaporates into nothingness.

After the Great Recession in 2008, there was an event that took place on Wall Street the next year. The organizers invited people to shred the stuff that symbolized the bad events of the past year: pink slips, worthless 401K statements, eviction notices, etc. The idea was to offer a catharsis for the bad things that happened that year. But we can do better.

When I did this in 2010, I put two slips of paper and an envelope in the bulletin. (If you're reading this, you can adapt it on your own.) On one piece of paper write down all the bad things about the previous year they wished to eradicate: events that had negative impacts on you and your loved ones—lost jobs, lost opportunities, broken dreams, illnesses, tragedies, stupid or bad decisions you made, stupid or bad decisions others made that had catastrophic effects on you or those you care for, foolish or harmful words, poor investments, fears realized, fears that never came true but which made your life miserable, arrogance, laziness, lust, greed, rage, envy, gluttony and any other sins you wish to obliterate. Do not put people on this list. We are not symbolically destroying people. Put actions, attitudes, situations and sins. Don't show anyone. Let's do that now.

+

Now on the other piece of paper write, on one side, the things you are thankful for that either happened last year or which survived to this year. Write down decisions you're glad you or others made, actions you're glad that you or others took, wonderful moments, dreams realized, victories achieved, disasters averted, hard work rewarded, and milestones in life reached.

Definitely put people you are grateful for on this list, even people who are no longer living in this world but who are resting in the arms of our loving God and Father. Let's do that now.

+

On the other side of the paper where we listed what we are grateful for, write down our needs and hopes for the new year. Write down both what you need to survive as well as what you hope will happen. They may be things needed for the physical, emotional, financial, or spiritual health of yourself as well as for those you love. They may be prayers for a better perspective on life, or a vision of a better-spent life to follow. When you are done, put the list of thanksgiving and hope in an envelope and put your name on it. Let's take a few minutes to do this.

+

What we did in 2010 was bring the lists and envelopes up to the altar. I had set up a “holy shredder” in which people could insert the stuff they wished to commit to destruction. We had a basket in which to put the envelopes of things people were thankful for and things they hoped for. (You may destroy the first list anyway you can.)

Over these things, let us pray:

Lord God, King of the Universe, Loving heavenly Father, we present to you these things that have hurt and harmed us, your people, this past year. We consign them to destruction. Some of these things are our own fault and we humbly repent, turning from them to you. Some were not our fault and we ask that you heal us and remove their negative effects from our lives. Help us to bury them and move on. We trust that as you brought the offer of eternal life for all out of the death of your beloved Son Jesus Christ, so you will bring out of these sorrows good things for those who love and obey you.

Good and gracious Lord, we present to you these envelopes. Inside are the things and people from this past year for which we are grateful. We acknowledge that they are blessings from you. We also present to you our hopes for this new year. We ask your blessing upon them. According to your wisdom and lovingkindness, water and nourish them that they may grow to maturity and flourish. And if there is anything here for which we are not suited or not yet ready, we know that you will grant something even better for us in the long run. For we know that it is your plan that we may grow into the likeness of your Son and display your love and healing power to others, that your blessings to us may also be blessings to the world, the world you have created and are in the process of making new. We ask all this in the name of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ and through the power of your Holy Spirit, who live and reign with you, Father, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Take the envelopes with your thanks and hopes home with you. Put them somewhere where you don't forget them. You can use them as a help or focus for some of your prayers. You may want to add to them or refine them. And watch to see how God answers those prayers.

I warn you: God thinks outside the box of our perception. He is, as we see in Genesis 1, creative. The answers to your prayers may be “Yes,” “No,” “Not yet,” or “I have something better for you.” He may answer your prayers but not in the way you thought he would. But we have his assurance that he is working all things together for the good of those who love him and that what he can do for us is immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine. (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 3:20) Knowing this, may our attitude this year be that expressed by Dag Hammarskjold: “For all that has been, thanks. For all that will be, yes!”

First preached on January 3, 2010. It has been revised and updated.