The latest issue of The Journal breaks the mold by publishing an essay by Walter Wink. Wink is a respected biblical scholar, not a sectarian dilettante. Heart attack territory for some of the brethren!
Talking about dilettantes, there's a big response to Dixon Cartwright's piece about the canon in the previous issue. Ken Westby puns about 'canon fodder' and sagely suggests that "a God who can create the cosmos can inspire canonizers." No doubt, and such a God could do a lot of other things too which he/she/it clearly doesn't, but probably should. Ian Willis, a British COGger, says stuff the Church Fathers, "A sovereign, all-powerful, loving God—Christ—moved men to understand which writings were inspired by Him and which were not." The logic? "We know the Bible is infallible because it claims to be infallible." Wes White thinks "a canon created by Catholics would've better supported their doctrines." A bit of myopia showing there Wes? Mike Baran was "a little shocked" (if you're twitching Mike, there's still hope). Gordon Feil is worried that inerrancy is at stake (yup Gordon, ya got that right chum) and that the canonical writers were forced to write what they did by something resembling an act of literary rape. The emminently reasonable Dave Havir takes a deep breath and speaketh calming words on the issue.
Dixon really seems to have hit a nerve!
This is a question that I've blatted on myself in the past. While it needs some further editing, my own position is pretty much the same as it was when I wrote Questions about the Biblical Canon way back in the long ago.
As for The Journal, you can download the complete issue in PDF format and check it out for yourself. If you don't have a COG (Church of God) background, pour yourself a stiff drink first.