The Thirty-Nine Thirty-Eight Articles of Religion, or "Will It Blend?"

If you're an Anglican/Episcopalian, you profess this:

ARTICLE VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Unless, of course, you're a Simple Country Bishop from New Hampshire; then it's OK to toss whatever gets in the way of your agenda. From this pre-Lambeth attention-getter in last Saturday's Guardian (Warning: graphic Shori-esque "small box" theology included):

My conservative brothers and sisters seem to argue that God revealed everything to us in scripture. Ever since, it has simply been our difficult but straightforward task to conform ourselves to God's will revealed there and to repent when we are unable or unwilling to do so.

For me, there is something static and lifeless in such a view of God. Could it be that even the Bible is too small a box in which to enclose God?

The Bible does not "enclose" God, my good Bishop, any more the user's manual "encloses", say, a kitchen blender. Both tell what is necessary for successful operation, each in their own realm. Both set limits on proper use. Both talk of consequences. Case in point - there is an admonition in your blender's manual about not using it while standing in water. You could die. ("Static and lifeless" indeed.) Are you, Bishop, freed from that "box" of consequences because you beleive making daiquiris while sitting in the hot tub is just a part of who you are?

Didn't think so.