Tom Kennar: Limited authority

This article will look at the the view of Tom Kennar with particular reference to his position on the authority of the bible. He is taken as a representative of a particular viewpoint and such a view is prevalent today even amoung those that teach us.

Tom Kennar  is an outspoken and charming rector from St Faith's Church Havant. He has his own blog and has his sermons publish on YouTube. He has recently commented upon the potential split in the church of England because of the evangelical movements attitude towards same sex blessings ( ie they are at fault).  In summary he believes that the Bible is to be no longer to be considered the Word of God and thus in particular many traditional views regarding relationships between the sexes and marriage should be re-evaluated. We may cover that issue separately.

Schism in the Church?

I agree with him that the core issue is the view that different Christians hold about the authority of the bible. However I differ with his conclusions.

This YouTube video (opens in new window) where he contrasts his view that the bible is a "vitally important collection of scriptures, inspired by God... useful for teaching and instruction but ultimately point toward the true Word of God which is Jesus" with " those who believe the bible to be the word of God and be treated as authoritative straight off the page in all matters". These, according to him are the cause of the schism.

Please take some time to watch his video. It is 11 minutes long. Usefully, you can find (some of ) the text  his sermon summarized here.  Here are some quotations:

1. "It is clear that I have touched a raw nerve among a certain section of the wider church who cling persistently to the idea that the Bible is the sovereign, immutable, inerrant Word of God."
2. "If we no longer consider the Bible to be the Word of God, this means radically re-evaluating our views about male headship of churches and the family – and that’s a challenge to some people."
3. "The saddest part of the debate for me is that lack of historical knowledge among my detractors. They do not seem to realize, for example, that the status of Scripture has been a real and live debate in the Christian church throughout its history.  The early church councils and synods wrestled with it, constantly – including centuries-long debates about which books should be considered ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the Bible.  Those debates have continued right through the church’s history – and even today, different version of the Bible, with different books included or excluded, are published by different sections of the church. "
4. With regard to same-sex unions, my detractors are ignorant of something called ‘adelphopoesis’ – or ‘brothering’.  That was a formal liturgical ceremony in which two people of the same sex could be legally and formally joined together as ‘brothers’ (nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more).  It was a common ceremony up until the Reformation, and shows that historically, the church was rather more tolerant of same-sex unions than many, today, suppose. 
5. Doing theology seriously, you see, requires us to live in the grey world of mystery.  As I’ve often stated, our tiny brains are simply not up to fully comprehending the mystery and majesty of God.  Any of us, at any time, might consider that we’ve reached firm and unassailable knowledge about God.  We may be utterly certain that we are right about, for example, the authority of the Bible.  Or we might imagine that we have completely comprehended God’s opinion about same-sex unions, or the divinity of Christ, or the efficacy of prayer.  But serious students of God, who’ve read the history of the church, and thought hard about the theological questions of the ages, soon come to the conclusion that all our supposed knowledge is provisional.  At any moment, the Holy Spirit is likely to shake us out of our certainty, rattle our complacency, and knock down the ivory towers of certainty that we love to battle over. 

COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Clearly his comment has struck a raw nerver for those who have a different view on biblical authority. He has had a number of comments on his YouTube video BUT THEY HAVE NOW BEEN TURNED OFF!!. He hold that those who oppose him believe that the bible is "authoritative, straight off the page the word of God in all matters" When he refers to straight off the page I am not quite sure what he means. For example when Jesus said in John 10:9-16 "I am the door..." Are those who hold a different view to consider Jesus as an actual physical door or as he said earlier in that chapter a physical gate? He has built a 'straw man' position for the opposing view so it cam be dismissed as extreme asnd unreasonable.

Alternatively he considers (reasonable) people like him think that the bible is inspired by God (and I think that those who oppose him think that also!), useful for teaching but point towards the true Word of God which is Jesus. However he pushes this idea further and asserts that only when Jesus speaks do we take it that God has spoken. Therefore we only need to take heed of the 'red letters' of the New Testament and we can go differently where the red letters are have been silent. The rest of the content of the Bible is useful but not authoritative. This fails completely because Jesus had much to say about  the failure of the traditions to uphold "what is written ... and teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (eg Mark 7:6) referring to the earlier scriptures. In Matthew 19 speaks about Genesis "...He who made them... made the male and female.. a man shall leave... and be joined to his wife... and the two shall become one" Jesus later speaks of eunuchs by birth but not of those who desire is of the same sex. (Note that we are not dealing directly with the same sex attraction issue here). There is much more to be said on this subject.

He claims ignorance for those who has opposing views in terms of 'nod, nod, wink wink' in relation to 'brothering'. To be fair I was ignorant of this but his conclusion is based upon some disputed research. A rebuttal can be found here. In any case this is a blind alley.

I am not convinced that 'doing theology' leads us to a grey world. Yes, we cannot comprehend all there is to know about God. If the standard of certainty and truth is omniscience then yes we fail to know. We cannot know things absolutely like God can. However we claim that God knows everything and he has spoken. He has spoken in our terms. He has disclosed Himself so that we can substantially understand. Our understanding will vary as our experience will vary but we can know God's truth and we can have knowledge. We can get closer and closer to knowledge of God's truth- we may never get to having arrived at full understanding but we can get closer. Tom is saying because we cannot fully know, everything is dark shadow. I an saying that although we cannot know things absolutely, we can know enough to base our lives on them. We can claim that  God is there and He has spoken. God accommodates himself and speaks in our terms. He has given words we can think about, He has invaded history and has spoken. We can understand substantially.