John Mark Hicks

Texts: Exodus 40:34-38; Joshua 11:23; 1 Samuel 8:4-9

Days 17-19 in Around the Bible in Eighty Days.

God led Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness to Sinai where God dwelt upon the earth. The purpose of the Exodus was not only liberation from slavery but encounter with God at Sinai whey they would become the covenant people of God.

At Sinai, God moved to dwell in the midst of Israel by filling the newly completed tabernacle with God’s glory and presence. Dwelling with Israel, God moved the place of God’s own rest from Sinai to the tabernacle and thus moved with Israel through the wilderness and into the promised land. Carrying God’s presence with them in the symbol of the ark of the covenant, Israel entered the land as their inheritance.

Their inheritance entailed the renewal of humanity. A new humanity—liberated from imperial oppression—now dwelt in a new Eden where God would rest in the land and give rest to the land.

This new Eden was a theocracy, and covenant people of God were designed to fill the land with peace, justice, righteousness, and joy. It was a place where Israel, representing all humanity as a priestly royal nation, would be a light to the nations and invite them to hear the word of the Lord so that they, too, might flourish like a tree by running water. Like Eden, this was a land where God ruled and in which God rested, and God tasked Israel, like humanity in the beginning, to fill the land with God’s imagers and God’s glory. Israel became a co-ruler with God and a priest among the nations.

Sadly, as in Eden with Adam and Eve, Israel became dissatisfied with God’s theocratic arrangement. Israel embraced a detour as they decided to choose their own king like the nations rather than calling the nations into the light and life of God’s way.

This detour empowered oppressive and self-interested structures. Rather than living before God in communities led by people whom God raised up as needed, they decided to give power to a system of hereditary monarchs. Though God would ultimately redeem the monarchy through reestablishing a divine theocracy through the work of King Jesus, the history Israel’s monarchy became another degenerative spiral into idolatry, just like the spiral described in Genesis 3-11.

Texts: Genesis 12:1-3, 7a; Exodus 6:2-8; Exodus 19:3-6.

Days 14-16 in Around the Bible in Eighty Days.

Who is Israel, and what is her purpose? It is a new humanity in a new Eden to continue and further the mission of God in the world.

Following the collapse of the world into violent imperialism and God’s intervention that scattered humanity across the face of the earth, God decided to create a people as God’s own people from among the nations for the sake of the nations.

God called Abraham as the ancestor of a people who would multiply and fill the land God would give them, and in this land, they would become a light to the nations. 

God, we might say, rebooted the divine mission. What God intended in the creation of Adam and Eve, God now intends in the creation of Israel. Just as God blessed male and female to multiply, so Israel would multiply. Just as God placed them in a Garden, so God would place Israel in a land. Just as God dwelt in the Garden with Adam and Eve, so God would dwell with Israel. Just as God wanted humanity to fill the whole earth, so God would bless all nations through Israel.

Israel is God’s new humanity for the sake of all humanity. The land of Israel became a new Garden of Eden for the sake of blessing all the nations of the earth. God commissioned Israel, just as he had commissioned humanity in the beginning, with a royal and priestly vocation, that is, to be light to the nations and the means of their redemption.

With Abraham, God is starting over and investing in Israel the same vocation that was given to humanity in the beginning. The story continues. Babel was not the end but the beginning of a new trajectory. While Babel wanted to make a name for itself, God decided to make a name for Abraham.

Text: Genesis 4:3-7; 6:11-13; 11:2-4

Days 11-13 in Around the Bible in Eighty Days

Traditionally, particularly in the West, Christian theologians have described the transition from the Garden of Eden to ground east of Eden as “the Fall.” Of course, there is a sense in which there is a fall because the circumstances radically changed: the original couple is now east of Eden rather than in the Garden itself.

However, “the fall” is often understood to mean that human beings radically changed in the moment they sinned. More specifically, their natures became utterly depraved, and they and their posterity were alienated from God through the guilt of Adam’s sin. The “original sin,” in this perspective, entailed total depravity and hereditary (or imputed) guilt for the whole human race.

In this video I suggest that a different analysis is more consistent with the narrative. Rather than humanity falling off a cliff from original righteous to total depravity as they exited the Garden, human tumbled from their original innocence through a foolish choice to anger, then to global violence, and then to imperial idolatry.

I prefer to call this a “tumble” rather than a “fall.”  What this represents is that humanity did not fall off a cliff and hit rock bottom on the day they ate from the forbidden tree but spiraled out of control through anger, violence, and idolatry. Cain murdered his brother, then the world was filled with violence, and in the post-flood period humanity embraced idolatry and pursued imperial interests. Humanity moved from innocence to idolatry facilitated by violence.

This was a tumble. Genesis 4-11 narrates a degenerative spiral into idolatry. This is the story Days 11-13 describes, and it is the topic of this video.

Days 9-10 in Around the Bible in Eighty Days

Texts: Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7.

The reading of Genesis 2-3 is widely disputed, and it is difficult to discern what the best reading is. Is this description of cosmic and human origins literal history (as if we were watching a video), a theological saga, a mytho-historical worldview, or some other genre?

My interest in this post, and in my book, is not to settle or even discuss those kinds of questions. There are many good books that engage those concerns (like William Lane Craig, John Walton, or Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?). My interest is more theological than historical, though both are important. And, more specifically, my interest concerns the nature of humanity before God as human beings seek to live out their vocation within the creation as well as the nature of the detour that followed eating the forbidden fruit.

There are different ways of understanding what happened. What is the nature of the “fall”? What was the perfection of humanity (if we can call it perfect) before the “fall”? What is the nature of the human condition after the disobedience of the original couple? History is strewn with diverse answers to these questions.

I suggest framing a theological reading of Genesis 2-3 in this way (though this is by no means the only way to frame it): is this a narrative about the legal separation or alienation of God and righteous human beings, or is it a narrative that functions like a wisdom parable (which does not deny its historical character) about foolish choices and immaturity? Is the point forensic as in a judicial judgment, or is the point about a foolish detour as in a wisdom play? In some sense, it could be both, I suppose.

The Western traditions of the Christian Faith have typically read this as a forensic story about guilt and punishment which left humanity alienated from God in their very nature. The Eastern traditions of the Christian Faith have typically read this as a wisdom story about life and death which has left humanity sick and diseased, bereft of the divine wisdom to flourish though still blessed by God in their search for the divine.

I suggest Genesis 2-3 is more about wisdom than forensics. It is more about life, choices, and consequences than about a courtroom trial and decision. It is about the maturation of humanity rather than its probation. The consequences are not so much forensic punishments as they are destructive processes generated by foolish choices.

This is a wisdom narrative that includes all of us. We are all Adam and Eve. We all begin as immature as children, and we all have chosen foolishness with devastating consequences physically, emotionally, and relationally. And, at the same time, God has graciously pursued us, just as God remained with Adam and Eve as they exited the Garden to live east of Eden.

In this Bible class video, I attempt to tell that story.

Days 5-8 in Around the Bible in Eighty Days

Text: Genesis 1:26-28

Who are we as human beings? What is our identity, and what is our responsibility and function on this earth?

The long history of spirituality, which is evident in today’s Western culture, has included a search for the authentic self. It seems we are constantly on a quest to discover our true selves and thereby embrace, if we can, our authentic identity as persons.

The story of God provided in Scripture identifies human beings as imagers of God. While the history of theology has often debated the particulars of this description, the general meaning is that human beings represent God within the creation as imitators of God. We are equipped to be Godlike and to work with God. There is not only a deep relational connection between God and humanity that is unique within the cosmos but human beings are partners (co-rulers, co-workers), junior partners to be sure, with God within the cosmos.

Our identity is a gift; it is a grace. We ought to receive it and welcome this dignity with which God has graced us. To resist this identity is to create dissonance with the creation, generate chaos within the God-human relationship, and break the bonds of community between ourselves and others, including the creation.

With our identity comes tremendous responsibility. Our vocation is summarized in some brief but rich language.

• Fill the earth with other imagers who are the glory of God—the God who enjoys enriching the earth with more authentic representatives.
• Subdue the earth, which is to continue the process of overcoming the remaining chaos within the creation and thus co-participate in God’s continual ordering of the world.
• Rule the earth with God as co-rulers, which invites us in the task of caring for God’s good creation like shepherds who care for their flocks.

Representing God, humanity partners with God in filling, subduing, and ruling. This is our human vocation; it is the task God has given to us and for which our identity qualifies us. In fact, some suggest that our vocation is our identity, that is, it is the image of God or how we image God.

Our vocation is the touchstone for thinking about how we pass our days upon the earth. Who are we? What are we invited to do? What does it mean to participate in the mission of God? What career should I pursue? How does my career participate in the mission of God and express my identity and vocation?

These are the sorts of identity and vocational questions human beings ask. It seems to me, at least in my own experience, we discover meaning and significance in life when we locate ourselves in the story of God. When we welcome the identity God has given us, pursue the life into which God has invited us, and embrace the vocation with which the story of God tasks us, we find our authentic selves. We find ourselves in the presence of God’s grace, mission, and community.

Days 2-4 in Around the Bible in Eighty Days

Texts: John 17:24-26; Isaiah 66:1-2; Genesis 1:1-2, 31

Why did God create the world?

I think it is for the same reason God sent the Son into the world. And it is this: to include humanity in the communion of God’s own love. That perhaps offers some perspective on why God created humanity.

But why did God create the material cosmos?

God created the material cosmos as a place where God would dwell with humanity and share life with them. The cosmos is like a temple in which God choses to dwell, and God made a temple for God’s own dwelling. Importantly, God did not built a house for solitude but to live with humanity in the good creation. God invites us to live in the house God built where we enjoy God, commune with God, and fill the cosmos with God’s love. The transcendent and unapproachable God graciously accommodates our finitude by creating a realty in which we, as finite creatures, might dwell with God.

Then what did God create?

God’s act of creation was a dynamic process that began with a chaotic mess and yielded a good, very good, world filled with diverse geography, diverse plants and animals, and a humanity invested with responsibility for the creation.

When God finished the work, it was good but incomplete. The creation had not reached its potential by the seventh day. It was only the beginning. The initial work was finished, that is, God created the space and filled it with the resources for its future growth and development.

Humanity was charged with filling the earth, which—at least—includes having children. The creation was designed to develop, change, and emerge into something more beautiful, more diverse, and more enriching. God has a goal for the creation. It was created to become more than what it was at its beginning. The story of creation is the story of God at work, in partnership with humanity, to bring the

Surrounded by people who falsely accused him, mocked him, beat him, divided his last possessions among themselves, and nailed him to a cross, Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.”

When one of the criminals crucified with Jesus confessed his guilt, recognized the innocence of Jesus, and asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom, Jesus responded, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

When darkness covered the whole land and nearing his dying breaths, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (quoting Psalm 31).

If we had been standing before the cross some two thousand years ago, there was nothing about that scene that announced the forgiveness of sins, victory over evil, and trust in God’s good work. We probably would have wondered, as we often do today, where is God in this? Why did God abandon the Messiah to death?

Whatever our reasonings, the Messiah himself sought forgiveness for his persecutors, hoped in the victory his death entailed, and died with a profound trust in the God of Israel. What gives birth to such merciful love, expectant hope, and trusting faith?

I imagine Jesus might say something like, “the God of Israel is my father.” And that was sufficient grace for him during those horrible hours on Good Friday.

Based on a scene in Eighty Days Around the Bible: The Story of God from Creation to New Creation.

I am grateful to Renew for the invitation to offer a 2500-word response to their 12-blog series “On Gender and the Bible.” Renew will follow my response with a 1500-word reply. I will regard their response as the end of our discussion with no further reply from me.

In their first blog, Renew identified my book, Women Serving God, as a primary interlocutor. Several blogs directly interacted with it; others did not. I responded to those blogs where Renew engaged my book specifically. A list of the blog interactions, with links, may be found here. I recommend everyone read both Renée’s book (On Gender) and mine as well as the blogs for a full account.

First, I will address our differences about the participation of women in the assembly. Second, I will offer some general perspectives regarding Renew’s 9,000+ word summary (blog #12). My response is entirely too brief, but I appreciate the space Renew has afforded me.

The Use of Gifts in the Assembly

My book focused on a specific question, “Does God invite women to fully participate through audible and visible leadership in all the assemblies of the saints where men and women are gathered to glorify God and edify each other?” (p. 16).

On this question, Renew and I find significant common ground.

• We both affirm the practice of women praying and prophesying in the assembly as a function of audible and visible leadership.
• We both believe 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a narrow concern and does not entail prohibiting women from speaking (e.g., praying, testifying, and reading Scripture) in the assembly.
• We both affirm there are forms of leadership within and outside the assembly (including teaching adult Bible classes, leading small groups among other functions) that do not dishonor “male headship (authority).”

Gratefully, Renew rejects the historic traditional position that silences women in the assembly except for singing (though much of history also silenced the singing of women). In other words, their interpretation of “male headship (authority)” is itself a new interpretation of the restrictive texts which began to emerge with some significance in the 19^th century. The “soft complementarian” position is a new position in the context of traditional practices. Traditionalists see this as caving into the women’s movements of the last two centuries.

In relation to the assembly, our primary difference is simply this: Renew believes authoritative teaching belongs only to “male headship in the local church.” This teaching “leads and sets direction for the congregation.”

Does this mean any lesson delivered from the pulpit on a Sunday morning “sets direction for the congregation?” Does this exclude women from all preaching or only some forms of or contexts for preaching? In other words, how does one discern when a function exercises headship (excluding women) and another function only exercises leadership (including women)?

Renew and I agree women may lead the assembly, but Renew restricts women from “authoritative teaching,” that is, the task of the “main preacher” and elders/overseers. They do so primarily on this basis:

• They see prophesying as less authoritative than teaching because women prophesied in the assembly but they are not permitted to teach authoritatively. The gift of prophecy, however, is given priority over teaching in the same way apostleship is given priority over prophesying in 1 Corinthians 12:28: “first, apostles; second, prophets; and third teachers.”
• Women should not exercise ecclesial [my word] authority over men (Renew’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12). However, (a) the translation of the rare word as “authority” is highly disputed; (b) it is not Paul’s word for ecclesial authority anywhere else (including 1 Timothy), and (c) women elsewhere exercised communal authority over men in Scripture (Deborah and Esther).

I don’t find these two points credible.

• Prophesying is speaking the word of God for the sake of edification, teaching, encouragement, and revelation. The distinction between prophesying and teaching in terms of authority is weighted in the wrong direction; prophesying is more weighty than teaching. It is also a distinction of recent origin—a new interpretation.
• To exclude women from authoritative teaching on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12 is precarious because the grammar, lexicography, and context is problematic. I have identified twelve different interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:12. Renew’s own discussion of 1 Timothy 2:12 identified their position as “likely” rather than certain. Their interpretation is dubious (see this video for a more thorough discussion).

Contrary to identifying a single office or gender as leaders in the assembly, 1 Corinthians 14:26 says, “What is the outcome of this, brothers and sisters? When you meet together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All these things must be done to build up the church.” When Paul says, “brothers,” in 1 Corinthians, he includes both men and women (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:1; 14:6, 20; 15:1). Both men and women are singing/praying (psalm), teaching, prophesying (revelation), and speaking in tongues in the assembly. Women were teaching as well as prophesying and praying. Renew does not think 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 totally silences women except disorderly ones (Oster) or those who judge the prophets in 14:29 (Sproles). This leaves lots of space for women to exercise audible and visible leadership in the assembly.

My point is a simple one. In terms of the assembly, Renew and I, disagree only on one particular: they exclude women from serving as authoritative teachers.

Renew and I agree that whatever “male headship (authority)” is, it does not silence women in the assembly. The problem of identifying exactly what is a “male headship (authority)” function in the assembly is not explicit in the New Testament. It must be inferred, which is why soft complementarians (including those in the Renew network) often disagree about where to draw the line.  

• Some don’t permit women to teach adult male Bible classes; some do.
• Some don’t permit women to co-preach with a male leader; some do.
• Some don’t permit women to lead worship; some do.
• Some don’t permit women to officiate at the communion table; some do.
• Some don’t permit women to permanently lead small groups that include men; some do.
• Some don’t permit women to be lead ministers over programs in the church involving men; some do.
• Some don’t permit women to preside over a baptism; some do.

I could go on. In 1995 (revised in 2006 & 2013), Grudem identified nine governing activities, ten teaching activities, and one “public visibility or recognition” position that are restricted to men while he detailed nineteen governing activities, twenty-five teaching activities, and nineteen activities related to “public visibility or recognition” that are open to women. The application of “male headship (authority)” is no simple matter.

Should not such an important principle that is foundational to male/female relationships be more clear?

Such applications, however, are unnecessary. No text explicitly restricts the participation of women in the assembly based on “male headship (authority).” Women prayed and prophesied even as they honored their heads. Headship (whatever that means) actually supports women in their praying and prophesying in the assembly, and prophesying—speaking the word of God to the assembly—carries authority to which the assembly should submit, after they are properly tested like all words should be. Since prophecy bears authority, it might be that 1 Timothy 2:12 does not mean what Renew thinks it “likely” means.

Summary Blog Post #12

If we appeal to history (not necessarily a bad thing), it cuts both ways. Perhaps worldly patriarchy has always (for centuries) influenced the interpretation of Scripture just as much as some think worldly egalitarianism influences the interpretation of Scripture today.

• The vast majority of Christians were traditionalists (totally silencing women in the assembly).
• The vast majority of Christians excluded women from any public roles in society as well the home and church. As late as the early 20^th century, many Christians opposed suffrage because a woman should only exercise authority through a man (supposed meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12).
• The vast majority of Christians believed women were inferior intellectually, inherently gullible (easily deceived), and too emotional for leadership, even into the early 20^th century (if not still among some).
• The vast majority denied women and men were equally created in the image of God. For them priority in creation implied Adam was a superior human. This includes some of the most renowned Christian theologians. Thomas Aquinas, for example, said females—as created—were inherently “deficient” and not made in the image of God in the same way males are.
• Many (though difficult to quantify) Christians overlooked, sanctioned, or even justified the maltreatment of women from domestic violence to sexual abuse.

Historically, female itinerant preaching emerged in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries at about the same time Christians began to advocate for the abolition of slavery.

Nevertheless, it is better—Renew would agree—to seek the restoration of God’s intent in creation rather than use historical arguments as theological principles. History is filled with good and bad, and the way to adjudicate is through biblical theology.

1. God created males and females to be different.

I prefer to say, God created males and females different. Males and females are differentiated. This a created good. God created diversity within nature and humanity. This diversity enriches life and brings different perspectives and experiences to the table. Difference does not imply a difference in authority, however. Rather, God enjoys the diversity of the human community because it enriches the community as they share life together in mutual submission.

2. God created male headship (authority) in the beginning.

This is the crux because it fundamentally and unnecessarily conflates primogeniture (authority as first created) with headship.

Does the creation of Adam have primogeniture significance? This is an unnecessary inference because (a) the text of Genesis does not read as a primogeniture text because the climactic moment is the creation of women so that humanity is whole (good); (b) primogeniture is not absolute in Genesis as Isaac is given the promise over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Judah over Rueben, and Ephraim over Manasseh; (c) the only explicit identification of authority in Genesis 1-2 is their shared authority over the creation; (d) the woman was created as an equal help/ally (one who corresponds or is “face-to-face”); (e) if it is primogeniture, then men should have authority over women not only in the home and church but in all social relationships; and (f) 1 Timothy 2:13 may be read differently as a narrative sequence rather than assuming primogeniture (see this blog).

Does Paul use the word “head” as a synonym for authority? This is not certain. There are other potential meanings from “ontologically superior” (traditional reading) to “source” to “head/body-unity/nourishment” to “prominence in terms of what came first.” I don’t think Paul means “authority” because (a) women participate in the assembly with their own authority (1 Corinthians 11:10, NIV, CEB); (b) though women came from men, now men come through women, and all things come from God—in the Lord, there is mutuality rather than gendered authority; (c) this is the only text (1 Corinthians 11:3) that indicates that “headship” is a relationship that every man sustains to every woman, but if it means authority, then this should apply to society as well as home and church (why is this not universally true rather than only in the home and church?); (d) headship in Ephesians 5 is about the head/body analogy where the head nourishes the body (rather than having authority over the body) and this relationship is characterized by mutual submission; and (e) if “head” means authority, then it appears men have authority over women in an analogous way that Christ has authority over the church—which is absolute authority, a Lordship authority.

In other words, this claim is far from certain, based on a few ambiguous lines in a few texts, rooted in inferences rather than explicit statements, and has created a primogeniture understanding in place of the mutuality and shared authority of Genesis 1. I think perhaps worldly patriarchy has influenced Christian interpreters throughout the centuries (leading them to traditionalist conclusions) rather than hearing the intent of the word of God. Soft complementarians, I believe, need to reclaim the original divine intent for creation rather than one influenced by worldly patriarchy.

3-4. Marriage

I understand Ephesians 5 in a much more mutual sense than a hierarchical one. Since my book did not discuss this question, I will move on due to space limitations.

5. Male Headship in the Local Church is Reflected in the Teaching-Authority and Elder Roles.

I offered my perspective on “teaching-authority” in the previous section. As to elders, my book makes no case about elders, so I will conserve space. Yet, though insufficient, I note that elders are never described as “heads” as part of their function in the local church, there are no male pronouns in the Greek text when Paul describes the qualities of elders/overseers, and Paul begins 1 Timothy 3:1, “if anyone” which is gender neutral.

6.  Men and Women are to submit to and honor the authority of male headship in the church.

Of course, this sense of “authority” depends on: (a) the meaning of “head” and (b) the meaning of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. These are dubious conclusions and far from certain.

I have no problem with believers submitting to teaching and appropriate functions/gifts of other believers. The question is whether that authority is gendered such that no females may serve as authoritative teachers (though women prophets did). Since believers are to submit to every fellow-worker and laborer, and women are included among Paul’s fellow-workers and laborers (20% are women in Paul’s letters; 1 Cor. 16:15-16; Romans 16:3, 6, 12; Philippians 4:3), then believers should submit to women as they serve within the community of faith. Submission is not about a gendered hierarchy of authority among believers but mutual submission to each other in the exercise of our gifts.

Authority lies in giftedness rather than gender. We submit to those who exercise their gifts within the community.

7. On Blessing the Church.

I have some questions.

• What if we have perpetuated worldly patriarchy instead of embracing mutual submission?
• What if we excluded gifts (including teaching) from the assembly because of worldly patriarchy?
• What if we have suffered loss (the common good for which gifts are designed) because we have excluded women from the exercise of some gifts due to worldly patriarchy?

I could ask more questions, but I am out of space.

“Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims.”  Many women can testify to that. They have been victims throughout church history.

I, with Renew, affirm: “men and women were created by God to equally reflect, in gendered [sexually differentiated, JMH] ways, the nature and character of God in the world.”

We mirror the glory of God in differentiated but mutual ways. Neither spiritual gifts nor authority are gendered. Rather, God’s glory is manifested through the diverse exercise of gifts within the community of faith.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with us all.

This is one meditation from the published book by John Mark Hicks, Around the Bible in 80 Days: The Story of God from Creation to New Creation (Abilene: Leafwood Press, 2022).

Below I summarize the point of Searching for the Pattern: My Journey in Interpreting the Bible.

Growing up in Churches of Christ, I embraced and practiced a hermeneutic that sought an implicit blueprint for the work and worship of the church in Acts and the Epistles. Through a filter of generic/specific distinctions, coordinate associations, the law of silence, and expediency (among other rules for authorization), I shifted through the commands, examples, and inferences within the New Testament to deduce a blueprint, which then became the standard of faithfulness and a mark of the true church.  And if everyone agreed upon and practiced the blueprint, we would be united! Part I of my book tells this story.

The inadequacies of this approach as well as its subjectivity (every conclusion and most steps along the way were inferences) created doubts. This is not how the apostolic witness called people to gospel obedience. They did not read Scripture or write Scripture with a blueprint lens. Something different was going on. This is described in Part II of my book.

The problem is the location of the pattern. The pattern is not found in an implied blueprint in Acts and the Epistles. Paul does not call people to obedience based on a blueprint located in the practices of the church. Instead, he calls them to obedience based on the pattern manifested in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus. This is the gospel we obey—the story of Jesus—rather than a blueprint we have inferred from the text but is not explicitly there. This is my point in Part III of my book.

Hermeneutics, even a theological hermeneutic which I promote in the book, always involves inferences. We cannot escape them; every application is an inference. But here is the significant point: the pattern is not an inference. On the contrary, it is the story in which we live. It is the narrative air we breathe. The pattern of God’s work through Christ in the power of the Spirit is clear, objective, and formative. It is the story told in Scripture; it is an explicit pattern.

We will find unity when we confess the same pattern, and the shame of our division is that we already confess the same pattern.  Our pattern is God in Jesus through the Spirit, or our pattern is Jesus. Here we are united, and our hermeneutics (whether blueprint or theological) must not undermine that unity but provide ways to embody it.  That is the point of Part IV of my book.