Writing to Bishop Spong Kurt Kenworth from Claremont, California writes:
"Recognizing that the Bible consists of many books by many authors over a 1,000 year period of time, and assuming that no major additions to the Bible have been attempted since the King James Version was published 400 years ago or so, and further noting that a stupendous amount of information about changes in the secular world, which seem to be accelerating, are now before us do you think a major addition, such as another "testament" or "New Testament No. 2" or an authorized supplement to the Bible (other than modern era re-translations that have been printed even in the 20th century, and which appear to be entirely self-serving) is in order?
Spong replies:
Was there no new insight to come out of Christianity after it was recognized by Constantine in 313? When Augustine related Christianity to the thoughts of Plato in the 4th and 5th centuries, was none of that worthy of being incorporated into the Canon of Christian scripture? When Thomas Aquinas rethought Christianity in the 13th century in terms of the thoughts of Aristotle, was not some part of that work worthy of inclusion? Were there no voices out of the Reformation that rose to the level of scripture? When liturgies were shaped in the 13th century, should not the account of that have been incorporated into our sacred story?
What is in the Bible is a political decision, some books made the cut and some were rejected as not authoritative or heretical. But at the time of Jesus some of the books in that are now in the "Old Testament" were not yet accepted as scripture, and of course none of the books that make up the "New Testament." Decisions were made and what these humans decided was "scripture" became The Word of God For The People Of God.
Would it be a good idea to include new books in the Bible? As I see it only the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutherans and Protestant Episcopalians would even entertain such an idea. Maybe we need a new Pope, but opening the canon won't happen on Benedicts watch. But still, assuming that the People of God were consulted, what books would you include?
I made an argument for opening up the canon in a posting of mine (http://mysticalseeker.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-than-bible-and-also-less.html) . To me, the idea of a closed canon has done considerable damage to Christianity, if nothing else because it has paved the way for things like fundamentalism and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The definition of scripture was unsettled before a canon was established. Some books were revered as scripture by Christians, like the Didache or 1 Clement, but they didn't make the cut. The whole notion of fixing a canon in time ignores the power of continuing revelation in our lives sense that time. And last, but not least, who is to say that some of the books that did make the cut maybe are inferior to some that did?