h1

When is a Command a Command?

February 22, 2006

I want to continue the project of collecting an Inventory of Doctrines of churches of Christ for the CENI study. Please post on that article if you want to submit a doctrine or practice for our discussion.

Meanwhile I want to post a few more thoughts regarding Command, Example, and Necessary Inference. I’ll post one article on each of the three principles of that hermeneutic, beginning now with Command.

When is a command a command?

Not every statement in the grammatical form of a command (imperative mood) is intended as a mandate. Let’s look at a few examples.

In Acts 2:38, the verbs “repent” and “be baptized” are both in the imperative mood in the Greek. Peter was answering the question, “what shall we do?” The result that the audience desperately wanted was forgiveness. Peter instructed them how to receive it. The tone seems to be instruction to a willing learner. Still, it is obvious from the text that repentance and baptism were necessary in order to receive the promised forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit. So I think that qualifies as a mandate. And the context makes it clear that the mandate applies to all whom the Lord would call, for all time.

In Phil 4:4, both occurrences of the verb “rejoice” are in the imperative mood. However the context hardly supports the notion that Paul was laying down a legal requirement, as though failure to obey would be apostasy. This seems more like an invitation to rejoice, or permission to rejoice. Perhaps it could be called an enthusiastic recommendation, or advice. It does not seem reasonable to me to take this as a mandate. Are a few moments of failure to rejoice a sin?

In Eph 5:19, the verbs in the Greek are all participles (“speaking” “singing” “making melody”). This passage seems to be painting a picture of how we should interact with one another, expressing our faith in the fellowship. It is not a law or a set of laws, but a description of what is good. It is not a list of things to do but a description of a way to be. The passage is not a mandate grammatically (ie not imperative mood), nor in meaning.

Sometimes a command is implied. Consider Gal 5:19-23. Here Paul lists the works of the flesh, and the fruits of the spirit. The two halves of this instruction are subtly different. The passage has no grammatical command, and yet there is a clearly implied message: “Do not do the things in the first list, and encourage the fruits in the second.” Note that according to the text, practicing any of the works in the first list would disqualify one from inheriting the Kingdom of God. There is an implied mandate to exclude all those works from our lives. However, notice that he doesn’t say you must demonstrate all the fruits of the spirit in order to be acceptable to God. Instead he says “Against such things there is no law.” They are produced by the Spirit, and are permissible. So in the second half he is giving wisdom, rather than a mandate. Again he is describing a way to be, rather than listing things to do.

Some commands in scripture were limited in scope to the specific people being addressed. For example, Jesus told the eleven (Luke 24:49) to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from on high. Common sense tells us that command does not apply to every believer.

How do we discern the intent behind the multitude of similar statements in scripture? I believe it is the work of a lifetime, to study, to meditate, and to gain understanding by degrees. We are not intended to apply a logical algorithm to the text to derive laws to be obeyed. We are not expected to arrive at complete understanding in this life. Understanding the scripture is a lifetime journey, not a destination.

Yet there are some clear commands in scripture, which should not take a lifetime to grasp. Examining our core doctrines and hermeneutics might help us determine where we have understood those commands, and where we have misconstrued the passage. Perhaps that effort can help us take down some walls and promote unity in the Lord’s church.

Click for the complete series on Restoration Hermeneutics

Posted in CENI | 2 Comments »

h1

Inventory of Doctrines

February 20, 2006

I need your help!

For our next series of articles I would like to discuss each of the fundamental practices of the Restoration Movement churches from the perspective of CENI. (things like baptism, the Lord’s supper, church governance, acts of worship, and anything else of that nature which we would expect to find in an “orthodox” Restoration Movement congregation). I want to discover the hermeneutic foundation for each practice. Did the Restoration Movement forefathers establish the practice based on an explicit command in scripture? Or was it recognized from a biblical example, or from a necessary inference? Any historical information about how the practice came to be recognized would be helpful.

At the same time, I want to examine each of these practices based on its nearness to the core of Christianity. Is it of crucial importance to salvation, or is it a peripheral matter, or something in-between? This will be a judgment matter, but I want to make an honest attempt to categorize the practices in this way. There may be a temptation to say every teaching is crucial to salvation. Or there may be an opposite temptation to claim that almost nothing is essential to salvation. Both extremes are mistaken IMO. The circle is not so narrow that only those with perfect understanding and practice will be saved. Nor is it so broad that everyone will be saved regardless of the severity of their errors.

I am interested to see which practices are crucial, and how well supported they are hermeneutically speaking. An understanding of this may be very helpful in advancing the cause of unity

To proceed, we need an inventory of these practices. And we need to collect the scriptural basis for each. I’d like get the biblical evidence as it would be argued by proponents of the practice.

This is where I need your help.

I’m looking for information in the following format:

1. Practice: Worship every Sunday
2. Biblical basis: Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2
3. Historical basis: Justin Martyr, Apology 1, Chapter LXVII
4. Fifty words or less of explanation: The church in Troas met on the first day of the week to break bread, and Paul preached. The Corinthian church took up a collection on the first day of every week. And the historical account of Justin Martyr indicates that the practice of the church was to assemble on the first day of every week for worship. So we have two scriptural examples and historical confirmation of the practice.

Please use a separate comment for each practice. If there is more than one line of reasoning, you could repeat points 2, 3, and 4 for each line of reasoning.

Right now we are in brainstorming mode, just collecting an inventory of these practices. Then we’ll organize the data and attempt to analyze each in more detail. Hopefully this exercise will give us more insight regarding the way toward unity.

May God give us success in our effort!

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

h1

A New Look

February 19, 2006

Following in the footsteps of some of my friends in my bloglist, I have decided to try a new theme for the Christian Unity blog. This one is a lot easier on my feeble eyes. As Paul says,

Gal 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

I hope you like it…

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

h1

Command, Example, and Necessary Inference

February 17, 2006

Note: Click here for the complete series on hermeneutics of the churches of Christ.

During the 20th century, the foundation for the doctrines of churches of Christ was a hermeneutic known as Command, Example, and Necessary Inference (CENI). This approach holds that there are three different ways that scripture authoritatively communicates the will of God. First, there are explicit commands (“Repent and be baptized…“). Second, there are examples / approved precedents (“Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church“). Third, there are necessary inferences (“On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” Therefore, there must have been an assembly every first day of the week. And therefore we are obligated to do the same). According to CENI, if a teaching is found in any of these three forms in scripture, we are obligated to obey it.

In principle, deriving biblical authority from direct commands is relatively non-controversial.

Most would also agree that where we see an approved precedent for a practice in scripture, that practice would be approved for us as well. Binding an approved precedent as an authoritative command is perhaps more controversial.

Deriving biblical authority from necessary inferences, on the other hand, has always been quite controversial.

In Thomas Campbell’s sixth proposition of the Declaration and Address, he stated that inferences and deductions from scripture are not binding on an individual beyond his current understanding, and therefore such inferences may not be used as terms of communion.

Thomas Campbell’s son Alexander originally opposed the idea of binding inferences from scripture, though his position seems to have shifted as the years progressed. There are many instances where his writings imply that necessary inference is a less satisfactory proof than a command or an example.

Two of Alexander Campbell’s students, J. W. McGarvey and Moses Lard, began to uphold the authority of necessary inferences around the middle of the 1800’s. Others, including David Lipscomb, strongly resisted the idea. But by 1880, the binding of necessary inferences was well established in the conservative wing of the Restoration Movement. Some quotes from the notable proponents at that time:

…the reformation consists in an effort to induce all the truly pious in Christ to become perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, by accepting as doctrine, precisely and only what is either actually asserted or necessarily implied in the Bible; to speak the same things by speaking what the Bible speaks, and to speak them in the language of the Bible; and to practice the same things by doing simply the will of Christ. Moses Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, 1864

We have solemnly covenanted that whatever cannot be clearly shown to have the sanction of this standard shall be held as not doctrine, and shall not be practiced. …To warrant the holding of a doctrine or practice it must be shown that it has the affirmative or positive sanction of this standard, and not merely that it is not condemned by it. Either it must be actually asserted or necessarily implied or it must be positively backed by some divinely approved precedent, otherwise it is not even an item in Christianity, and is therefore, when it is attempted to be made a part of it, criminal and wrong. Moses Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, 1864

The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament. J W McGarvey, The Millennial Harbinger, 1868

I have been taught all my life that the Scriptures teach ‘by precept by approved apostolic example and by necessary inference,’ and it is certain that this is correct….I am sure it is safe to do as they did; I am not certain it is safe to do any other way. James Harding, 1901

These men were all men of great integrity and scholarship. Had they stopped short of binding their inferences on others, I believe their positions would have been noble and right. But I believe that the theological battles of their day led them to the binding of examples and necessary inferences. In doing so they abandoned an important part of the call to unity from the Declaration and Address of 1809. And the result has been many divisions in the church.

I want to study more on this subject. The scriptures themselves do contain instructions and examples of how to properly apply the scriptures. I believe a lot can be learned by examining how Jesus and the apostles used scripture.

Posted in CENI | 24 Comments »

h1

Upcoming Events

February 14, 2006

This weekend my wife and I will be travelling to Columbia, SC to attend the 2006 Southeast Festival of Faith conference hosted by the Columbia Church of Christ. This will be a gathering (primarily) of former ICOC congregations from around the southeast, and should be an interesting time. It will be the first such assembly in the southeast in several years. Since the last conference the various congregations have become autonomous after years of centralized control, and have been addressing various reforms that were sorely needed. There has been communication among the churches in the intervening years, and there is reason to believe that many of us are moving in similar directions. It will be interesting to see to what degree that is really the case.

On another note, an ElderLink forum will be hosted at the North Atlanta Church of Christ on March 25. ElderLink is a program out of Abilene Christian University designed to support elders in churches of Christ. I am very excited about the opportunity and am making plans to attend. Hopefully several other elders from the Atlanta family of former ICOC congregations will also attend.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

h1

Baptized into One Body

February 7, 2006

1 Cor 12:12-13 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

The Corinthian church was plagued with an assortment of spiritual problems. Several of the problems Paul addressed in 1 Corinthans revolved around a lack of unity in the congregation. They were divided over preachers (1 Cor 1:10-12), opinions about freedom in Christ (chapters 8-10), and also over spiritual gifts (chapters 11-14). In Chapter 12, Paul addresses the underlying problem. They did not understand that, despite all their differences, they were all one in Christ. They needed one another. None of them was dispensable.

The church today would do well to learn the same lesson.

At this moment, a committee from the former ICOC congregations is considering what Paul’s instructions mean for the future relationships among these churches. A recent paper from this group (“Hyper-Autonomy: Abandoning Independence for Interdependence”) points to 1 Cor 12:13 and asks, “How strongly do we truly believe ‘we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.’ ” The article appeals to these churches to be interdependent upon each other, rather than existing in isolation. Quoting from the article:

Decisions we make about the relationships among churches actually indicate our convictions about the church being the family of God and the body of Christ.

That is a strong statement indicating a deep conviction on the part of the writers. We must have relationships between congregations that demonstrate we are one Body and one family.

However the paper stops short of satisfying that conviction. The scope of interdependence advocated in the article extends only to the former ICOC congregations. Are there not many other churches in which people are being baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ? Of course there are. I am persuaded that these former ICOC congregations, and the members of this committee, realize that the Body of Christ extends to many more people than just the former ICOC congregations. But the parochial thinking among these churches still persists. We need to broaden our view. We must reach out to our brothers and sisters whom we have ignored in the past 25 or so years. Our heritage in Christ goes back much farther than 25 years. And our Christian family extends far beyond the borders of the former ICOC churches.

We were all baptized by one Spirit into one Body. We are one family. Let’s demonstrate our conviction in these things by building relationships with all our brothers and sisters.


Posted in ICOC | 4 Comments »

h1

Doctrinal Discussions

January 31, 2006

Lately I’ve done a bit of commenting on threads on other blogs about doctrinal questions.

FIDE-O is having an interesting discussion of Calvinism. I’ve commented here and here. The consensus of the group is decidedly pro-Calvinist. I have not been able to bring myself to accept some parts of that body of doctrine.

Over at Regan’s Ravings, Regan is wrestling with the idea of baptism and with questions on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I am a bit conflicted about the idea of getting into controversial doctrinal discussion. The baptism question seems foundational to me. I take Acts 2:38-39 to be a universal and conditional promise. Baptism is one of the conditions. So in a quest for unity that discussion seems to be one in which I should engage.

However, the Calvinism debate is different. I don’t know of any scripture indicating that a person must understand and accept (or reject) that doctrine in order to be saved. Therefore I think there will be people on both sides of the question in heaven. So those who disagree with me are still my brothers, and I should not be quarrelling with them about disputable matters. And yet… Perhaps it would be possible to establish enough common ground between the two sides to eliminate suspicions and misrepresentations.

I’m not as confident about which category the question about the Holy Spirit belongs in.

For those of us who place a high priority on pursuing the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17, it is important that we handle these doctrinal discussions in a unifying way, if we engage in them at all. That is necessary even if the other participants do not handle the discussion in that manner.

Alan

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

h1

Don’t Bother Me With the Facts

January 25, 2006

From an article appearing today at livescience.com

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

Scientists studied the brain activity of partisan Democrats and Republicans as they processed various facts that paint their favorite candidate in a bad light. They observed that emotions take control in these situations, rather than logic.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. “The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,” Westen said.

Of course this is not at all surprising, but it is an important phenomenon.

While this interesting in the political arena, it certainly relevant in the area of religion also. And it could be a huge obstacle to unity. We have an innate tendency to react emotionally when our beliefs are questioned. As a result we are very unlikely to logically consider an opposing viewpoint. The more emotional the issue, the less likely we will consider it logically. This makes it all the more important that we avoid polarizing in our conversations. We need to help one another keep our emotions calm. We need to be non-threatening.

Grace and patience are the best antidote I can think of for this tendency.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

h1

Accept One Another

January 23, 2006

Far too many issues divide Christians today. Recently I’ve participated in discussions about a couple of these issues (instrumental music, and the role of women in the church). Those discussions have been enlightening.

On these two issues I find myself on opposite sides. I do not have a conscientious objection to worshipping with instrumental music, putting me on the permissive side of that debate. However, I do have a conscience issue with women speaking publicly in a worship service, putting me on the restrictive side of the question. Participating in these two discussions has shown me what it feels like for people on both sides of a disputed question.

I won’t get into the specifics of my beliefs on these topics here. You can read my post commenting on instrumental music here, and the thread where I posted on the role of women here.

While I do not believe it is wrong to use instrumental music in worship, I respect those who believe it is wrong. Their belief is derived from scripture honestly, based on a certain hermeneutic, and is well though-out. There are many who hold that belief sincerely and with deep conviction, despite the extreme unpopularity of the belief. Their conviction and integrity is commendable. I know how it feels to hold such a conviction because I hold a similarly unpopular conviction on the subject of the women’s role.

Many who hold the permissive view on one of these subjects cannot imagine how an honest person could hold the opposing view. So they conclude that the other person must be dishonest, or illogical, or biased. The motives of the conservative person are often called into question. The discussion descends into ad hominum arguments. That is not constructive, and is not “walking in love” (Rom 14:13-15).

If there is any hope of restoring unity to the Lord’s church, we must learn to accept one another without passing judgment on one another on disputable matters.

It apparently is possible to condemn yourself by approving something God does not approve:

Rom 14:22-23 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I do not know whether approving instrumental music or approving women preaching would fit into the category of a person condemning himself by what he approves. But it is quite clear that a person who believes one of these to be wrong, yet practices it anyway, is risking condemnation. Therefore we should be quite careful to respect the convictions of those who believe such things to be wrong. They have no choice but to follow their consciences.

For the sake of the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17, let’s resolve not to put a stumbling block in our brother’s way.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

h1

Where To Go From Here

January 16, 2006

Some things are easy, and others are hard.

Demonstrating the biblical call to unity is easy. A doctorate in theology is not required. Finding fault with the current state of disunity among professing Christians is also easy…as is the task of pointing out where Christians in the past have given birth to controversies that have led to long-standing divisions.

It is a good thing that those are easy tasks. They are necessary first steps toward the really hard and really important steps that follow. If the first steps were the hardest, fewer people would even begin the work. But many who enthusiastically take on the early tasks come to a standstill when it comes time to do something about it, something that makes a difference.

Having commented on the thirteen propositions of Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address, it is now time to shift from theory to practicals. And now it gets really hard.

Today this was posted on one of my earliest articles on this blog:

Thanks for working on your blog. It is encouraging to see brothers who want the broadest unity without losing core theology or salvation doctrine.

I would be curious to learn more of your thoughts and ideas on developing unity, congregational mergers and practicals for building bridges with those who share the same core beliefs.

I want to bring these topics onto the front page of the blog. I absolutely don’t have all the answers to these questions. I have some thoughts, mainly unproven thoughts. I am convinced that it must start with communication built on humility and mutual respect. How far that can take us, and how quickly we can get there, I do not know.

I believe everyone has something to contribute. If your gift is in the practicals, this is where that gift is needed! Where do you think we should go from here?

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »