The Bible is a big collection of books (66 in the Protestant canon and more in the Eastern and Roman Churches) and as someone who believes that all of them are inspired (I’m not going to define my view beyond that), it can be a weighty endeavor to keep them in order. Because the Bible is so diverse, people can and likely do focus on certain books and passages without giving similar time to others. Such a phenomenon appears to be the natural result of trying to digest so much writing as well as the likelihood that God will use certain texts to affect us more than others. This tendency can turn dangerous, however, when we emphasize certain books to the exclusion of others, of saying certain books are more important than others, or of developing a “canon within the Canon.”

The Bible is big and it’s unlikely that God will use every word, chapter, and book with equal emphasis in reaching out to communities of faith and individual readers. Going along with Bobby Clinton, it is more likely, and more descriptively accurate to say that God will probably use a few “core books” to speak to Christians over and over. That is not to excuse lack of study of the whole Canon, but we realize that for certain people, God seems to use certain texts. For whatever reason, Ephesians resonates with me more than Colossians. God seems to speak to me more through Matthew these days than through Mark. Currently, Jeremiah challenges and invigorates me in ways that draw me back to that text more than Isaiah does. Similarly, different communities of faith have found God speaking to them through different texts more than through others. Calvinists historically return to Romans, Lutherans to Galatians and many of the Psalms, and Anabaptists find the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5—7) especially formative. These texts do more than teach, inspire, and challenge us; they enter our DNA and change who we are. My way of engaging the world wouldn’t be the same without Exodus 1—18. If we tried to digest all of Scripture equally, we would likely gain only a cursory knowledge of it; our time is likely better used to delve into those texts that already have shaped us greatly. Considering that we’re generally better at narrowing our focus than at expanding our vision, I’ll spend the rest of the time offering warnings against having too narrow of a biblical vision.

We must not let the fact that certain books resonate with us more than others to lead us to a canon within the Canon. I believe it is dangerous to say that some books are more important than others. Martin Luther famously ran in danger of creating a canon within the Canon when he called the book of James, “an epistle of straw” as he compared it to the Pauline epistles, John, and 1 Peter. [1] The panoramic vision the Bible presents of God and people in relationship with God requires that we consider all that the Bible has to say. To pit Jesus against Paul or Moses engages in unfruitful activity. I’m not saying that their words are completely harmonious, but I think that we can find unity within the variety of texts our spiritual ancestors handed to us. Yes, God may use Hosea to speak to me more than 2 Chronicles, but if my understandings of God, grace, and community are to be biblical, they must also incorporate what 2 Chronicles has to say. We don’t have to look far to see poor and possibly harmful beliefs emerge because Christians emphasize a few texts (often out of context, but that is another matter) to the exclusion of what others have to say.

The canon within the Canon emerges not only when we emphasize certain texts and ignore others. We can exclude texts when we subsume their message into another text we consider to be more normative. This is an interpretive issue. We demand “plain readings” of certain texts and complicated interpretations of texts that seem to contradict that normative text in order to bring those difficult passages into harmony with our interpretation. Because understanding genres is important, I am not calling for a literal approach to all of Scripture. It can be difficult to remain open to tension that may emerge between various texts, but I don’t think it’s helpful to assume that one must win over others. I have swam in circles where Romans was perhaps the most important book in the Bible and people called for plain readings of its passages. When discussing how Christians should relate to the state, the community considered chapter 13 normative, with its understanding of the state (then the Roman Empire) as a servant of God and demanding obedience to it. Revelation 13, which discusses the Empire as an evil beast making war against the saints, received little attention. On the other hand, other groups I know gladly see the state as an evil power and try to recast the discussion in Romans 13 in light of their view of the state as a beast.

I don’t think there are quick solutions to resolving the temptation to create a canon within the Canon. It seems most likely that we should start reading biblical books outside our comfort zone or expertise, letting those books speak for themselves first before comparing and contrasting them to other books, though the comparison will eventually need to happen. This endeavor demands much prayer, letting the Spirit who inspired and illuminates these texts to guide us through their meaning and relation to other books, chapters, and verses.

[1] See this page for the larger quotation from Luther regarding what books should be emphasized.