There was a time in our brotherhood when we elevated the book of Acts to a special status. Acts showed us how people became Christians in the first century. Acts revealed much about the structure and organization of the early church.

Paul’s writings were also of highest importance, partly because Paul figures so prominently in Acts. There was an awareness that Paul wrote to address issues in the church and teach basic doctrines essential to the faith. Out of these writings, Romans was valued for its teaching about salvation, while the pastorals found a special place because of their insights on church governance.

One tier down were the other epistles. They were seen as important, but not quite on the same level as what Paul wrote.

The gospels were relegated to the role of historical curiosity, speaking of times before the cross. Dispensationalism was strong, and the gospels didn’t belong to the current dispensation.

Last and least was the Old Testament. Not only seen as addressing things prior to the Christian age, the Old Testament was taught to have been “nailed to the cross”; anyone trying to teach Old Testament principles was considered to be trying to live under the old law instead of the law of Christ.

Times are changing. The Old Testament seems to be revered and despised at the same time. Old Testament teachings about justice have found a renewed place in Church of Christ canon, while stories of violence are considered to be the ignorant writings of underdeveloped peoples. Any woman mentioned in any positive light is held up as an example of why women should be given prominent roles today; any stories not exalting women are examples of the patriarchy that created the violent stories.

Where the gospels were once seen as somewhat irrelevant because they addressed a time that isn’t ours, the epistles have now slipped to that status. Much of the New Testament is seen as still being controlled by the underdeveloped patriarchy; or, to be more precise, many feel that the epistles couldn’t say all that they would have said because those advanced teachings wouldn’t have been received by the status quo. (Fortunately we’re more enlightened now)

And the gospels reign supreme. “I value Jesus over Paul.” Most would ignore the occasional nature of the gospels, except to say that there were things even Jesus couldn’t do because the people of that time wouldn’t accept them.

If my snark doesn’t show it, I don’t identify with the prior outlook nor the current one. I take the whole Bible as the Word of God, inspired by God, and useful for Christians. I believe we need to study genres and context and textual variants and a host of other things, but none of that removes the divine nature of the Bible, in my eyes.

There’s lots more to be said. I’ll pause for now, hoping to have some discussion.