Not sure if there is any way around having a maestro of some sort. Though you can appreciate the many-faceted theologies found in scripture, you've got to put it all together somehow.

I balk a bit at the suggestion to not take one's lead from Jesus; though I realize that wasn't the intent of this piece.

I do agree that reading the red letters of Jesus and nothing else is foolish, to say nothing of the disregard for the context, theologies, and writing intentions of John, Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Paul, James, and the other commentators on Jesus's life have much to say about understanding and following Him that should neither take a back nor front seat to His teachings.

The trouble is that we humans like simplicity, and we like extremes, and sometimes the radicalness of Jesus, over and against the radicalness of Paul or James, appeals to those of us who want to be unique in our interpretations of Christianity. As if any of us could outdo Jesus's perfection, grace, forgiveness, commitment, etc.

Good point, however I might disagree with the concluding paragraph. I'm not sure the writers of Scripture would encourage us to have more voices. James 3:1, "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

In our overly loud day I don't think we need to hear more Christian voices, we need to hear less and more of God's voice as revealed in His Word. Perhaps mine is one of those voices so I shall desist!

I agree that we need to hear all the voices of the Bible and the Christian community in all its variety. The church would be richer and spiritually deeper if we could get past our own biases and listen to the Spirit through others.
Today, I was reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy and he talked about normal (vs. insane) humans being those who allow the world to be bigger than themselves. The mad construct a world that they are the king (or messiah) of. I fear that as we have maestros, we become somewhat insane. Listening to other voices makes us healthy spiritually (testing the spirits, of course.)
Also, what about the OT voices? Should we hear from Moses, David, Isaiah and others about our faith? They informed Jesus, Paul and the others.

Two words

Holy Spirit

This is one time when I'm remiss at the blogging and commenting platform.

I really wish you'd explain your thought process better regarding Jesus. Your statement "which renders making even Jesus the maestro suspect" leaves me terribly wanting for an explanation because at face value it's absurd.

But I too recognize it was not the point of this post, so I hope you would follow on with a better understanding of what you meant.

Why only "invite to the table – African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, ..."? Why not some real Africans, Latinos, Asians, and perhaps - dare I say it - some good old Europeans ("where history comes from") and new-era Australasians?

It is probably more accurate to say that white Western evangelicals have taken captive evangelical theology and doctrine. In my travels around the world and involvement with the underground church in closed countries, I find while we have much to share in the way of discipleship and training, we have much to learn in the way of deep, life-controlling faith . . . the kind of faith that comes not for those of us living in prosperous cultures but from those in persecution and suffering.

A book that I think addresses the topic of this article but has been unfairly maligned is Daniel Fuller's "Unity of the Bible". This book provides a depth of viewpoint that incorporates all the books of the Bible. However, it appears to offend white Western theology. It has been accused of promoting salvation by works, an accusation which is unfounded and derived from a superficial reading, much as one might derive the same from James.

Both present the importance of works as evidence of faith, not as a means to salvation. This can become a stumbling block to some for whom salvation of faith is threatened by any mention of works, but it is imnportant. There is a difference between good works to earn salvation and good deeds that flow naturally from a heart that is saved.

If we throw out the concept of good deeds entirely, which James also puts forth so well, we must throw out much of Jesus' own words about works and obedience.

Augustine said in 397 A.D. that the “most expert investigator of the divine scriptures” will both have read all the Scriptures and also have “a good knowledge” of them. This will protect the interpreter so that others “will then be unable to take possession of his unprotected mind and prejudice him in any way against sound interpretations or delude him by their dangerous falsehoods and fantasies.” Unfortunately, very few Christians actually do this. They simply choose the theologian most closely aligned with the way they already think and let him dictate.

Chris Smith,

From which Augustinian work are you quoting from?

I'm trying to understand what this is about. No apparent contradictions are mentioned, and indeed I didn't ask for a list because the question seemed off-topic. But this seems like a much to general topic... Why are we talking about how we need to fit all the perspectives together but not actually attempting it?

Granted, that would result in debate, and intellectual division. So I walk away only wondering what kind of division that is... Should it be embraced, avoided altogether, applied in moderation, or applied at will but only with the correct attitude?

I think when Scot suggests we shouldn't take Jesus as our maestro when reading the Bible, he means Jesus as presented by Luke (or John or Mark or Matthew). Of course Jesus is our maestro in life, as Scot talks about all the time on his blog. He's just saying we need the whole canon, and without an artificially imposed hierarchy.

Thank you for bringing attention to Caird's innovative approach to New Testament theology.
Caird tried to avoid choosing a "maestro," but, of course, that has one unfortunate side-affect: Caird himself became the maestro. By choosing what questions to ask the various NT writings and choosing how to phrase those questions, Caird himself became the "maestro's lens" through which the NT is understood. I'm not sure this can be avoided, but it is a pitfall of which to be aware.