of the fourth gospel, the second gospel, and 1 Corinthians are relatively
clear and their testimonies establish the boundaries of orthodoxy. In this
sense, Scripture functions somewhat like an elaborate creed.
Creeds fascinate me because of the special requirements of their genre.
They must be clear enough to say important things and to exclude beliefs
considered unacceptable. But they also cannot be too precise. They can-
not defi ne a pinpoint. To do so would require them to exclude too much
(too many people really). A well-written creed allows for a measure of
breadth, but also establishes boundaries. I am suggesting that Scripture,
although written in multiple genres, should be read in a similar way. That
is the point of canonization, which brings a limited number of texts into a
special relationship. The canonical principle does not subvert the impor-
tance of authorial intent when interpreting a particular text, but it adds
that author’s authentic voice to the collection of voices that cumulatively
guide and anchor the Church.
However, it is also important to qualify this general principle in a cou-
ple of ways. First, it is unacceptable to pit one author against another when
more complementary approaches are available. For instance, within liberal
Protestantism, there has been a long tradition of pitting Paul against Jesus
as he is portrayed in the gospels. 35 Jesus is presented as the great critic of
religious hypocrisy, legalism, and the bigotry of the devout against those
who are less scrupulous. Paul, in contrast, is then portrayed as himself
being rigid, devout, and a Christianized version of Jesus’ opponents. To
put it in a nutshell, for liberal Protestants who think along these lines, Paul
becomes an object lesson for contemporary readers of what not to become
rather than an exemplar to imitate.
Of course one interpreter’s “Listen to every New Testament voice!” is
another’s “pitting one author against another.” How are the Scylla of the
fi rst principle and the Charybdis of the second both to be navigated? And
why is the Pentecostal plea to give the author of Luke-Acts his due not
simply pitting Luke against Paul? The answer is simply this: Pentecostals
could properly be accused of this if they did not give both authors their
due. Pentecostals might conceivably assert that when Paul says in Rom.
8:9, “If anyone does not have the Spirit of God, this person does not
belong to him,” he is simply wrong, since Acts 8 and 19 suggest a person
can be a believer in Christ without having received the Spirit. But this
would be unacceptable, since it fails to give Paul his due. And this is not
what the vast majority of Pentecostals claim. Rather, they identify two
experiences of the Spirit: the fi rst occurring at conversion when the Spirit
96 G.W. MENZIES