John Mark Hicks

Do we need “authority” for what we believe and practice in the kingdom of God?

I think so. 

It seems that Jesus was concerned about that very question when he raised it with his inquisitors regarding the baptism of John.  “By what authority” seems to be a legitimate question (Matthew 23:23-27).  [Perhaps someone might quibble with my use of that text–I understand that, but I will leave the larger question to the side for the moment.  I will simply assume, for my present purposes, that disciples of Jesus need “authority” for what they believe and practice in the kingdom of God.]

Now the question is what do we mean by “authority”? What are we talking about? 

Limiting myself to the historic position among Churches of Christ on “biblical authority,” I want to discuss this point in the light of two variant approaches.

One answer might be something like this.  What disciples need for authority in the kingdom of God is positive law. In other words, to search out the rules and regulations which govern the church as if New Testament documents intended to fully set out a pattern for the church in terms of assembly, organization, etc. These rules, for example, are specific and exclude coordinates (not simply what contradicts the command, but what is coordinate to the command). The specific of bread and wine, for example, excludes any other food in addition to the bread and wine. The specific of singing excludes any addition to the singing (including humming, playing or handclapping, etc.). The specific of first day of the week Lord’s Supper excludes any other day. What is assumed is that each of these texts intend to be specific exclusionary commands. This is a process for discerning positive law, and it assumes a constitutional literary model, legal hermeneutics, isolation of texts from contexts in order to place them in a legal syllogistic frame, human inferences about “coordinates” and their nature, and the Reformed regulative principle among other things. I have critiqued this approach in my previous articles on hermeneutics, especially the series on Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics and this present series.

Another answer might be something like this.  What disciples need for authority in the kingdom of God is an organic connection or relationship with the gospel (the Christ Event). Jesus is the authority in the kingdom of God–the meaning and significance of his life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension are the authority for disciples of Jesus. Whatever we do in the kingdom of God must be rooted, connected to and organically grow out of the Christ Event. It is fundamentally the imitation of Jesus, but more broadly the imitation of God (theocentric focus) who is revealed in Jesus and through redemptive history.

The problem with positive law is that we don’t have any instruction within the New Testament that fits the genre of a legal code in the New Testament.  The Christ Event is the core message of the New Testament and the theological reality which is the hermeneutical lens for Paul (as an example).  If you have read my previous posts on hermeneutics, you can understand why I think the “Christ Event” rather than “positive law” is the root of authority in the kingdom of God. 

Authority derives climatically from the mighty act of God in Jesus whose significance has been lived out in Israel previously and the church subsequently. Authority in the kingdom of God is not about legal propositions but authentic revelation of the heart of God in Jesus.

But how does this work? Those within Churches of Christ are quite familiar with how positive law functions within a paradigm of command, example and inference that assumes a legal pattern for the church within the New Testament. But authority derived from the act of God in Jesus does not resonate well with those trained in the legal hermeneutic of positive law.  Consequently, I will briefly illustrate what I mean by this.

Those who know my writings know that I have spent quite a bit of time and used quite a bit of space talking about the sacraments or ordinances of the gospel (Baptism, Lord’s Supper and–I would add–Assembly).

The practice and meaning of these sacramental moments is derived from the Christ Event rather than a positive law. This was part of my purpose in my “sacramental triology” on Baptism, Lord’s Supper and Assembly.

Baptism. Disciples follow Jesus into the water.  They commit themselves, as Jesus did, to the ministry of the kingdom through their baptism. They are declared children of God at their baptism. They are gifted with the Holy Spirit to minister at their baptism.  Jesus is the model of baptism; his baptism is the first Christian baptism. As disciples of Jesus, we commit ourselves to the way of the cross through baptism just as he did.

Israel anticipated this purification act through their own water rituals and the early church continued the water ritual of baptism as initiation into the community, participation in the gospel, and anticipation of the eschaton.

Lord’s Supper. Disciples follow Jesus to the table. They continue the table ministry of Jesus through the breaking of bread–eating with sinners and saints, Pharisees and prostitutes. At the table, Jesus breaks the bread, communes with us, and we enjoy the fellowship of the kingdom.  But the table is characterized by kingdom etiquette–it welcomes the poor, the oppressed, the wealthy, sick, etc. At the table we sit as servants together in the kingdom of God and declare the gospel in word and deed.

Israel anticipated this table fellowship through the thanksgiving (fellowship) offerings of the Levitical system which was a daily event in Israel and part of every festival.  The early church continued breaking bread with Jesus and each other, both daily and every first day of the week. The practice of the table was declaration of the gospel, a participation in the gospel, and an anticipation of the eschaton.

Assembly. Disciples follow Jesus into the assembly of God’s people.  Jesus assembled with the people of God to declare the praise of God, and he calls us to gather together in his name to pray. He is present with us, joins in our chorus of praise to the Father, and by the presence of the Spirit transforms us into his image.

Israel anticipated the assembly of God’s people with Jesus through their own assemblies in the presence of God (Leviticus 23) as their festivals were sacred moments of encounter between God and his people.  The early church continued the practice of assembling for prayer as well as mutual encouragement, but it was not simply for encouragement but also to meet with Jesus and enter the Holy of Holies as a community. Assembling is a witness of the gospel, a participation in the gospel, and an anticipation of the eschaton.

Thus, disciples seek “authority” in the life, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus rather than in prescriptive rules and regulations that are embedded in a legal constitution. We seek authority in the story of God among his people so that we might participate in that story, imitate the life of God in that story, and become the image of God in the world rather than finding a pattern (which we have to construct because it is not explicitly there) in order to build our congregations like Moses built the tabernacle.

I know that there are many other hermeneutical issues to consider.  I have made a feeble, fallible and flawed attempt to think through some of the issues of hermeneutical method.  I hope it is beneficial to some and at least food for thought to all.

Now I take leave for a few days to watch the Cubs in Atlanta as the eschaton is on the horizon with the Cubs in first place!  🙂

Shalom,

John Mark

So, what about the assembly? 

[“What about lifestyle?” is, of course, an equally–perhaps more–important question, but this has not been the historic location of hermeneutical debates among Churches of Christ though I hope we will spend more time on that question in the future–and sometimes in the past we have, as with David Lipscomb and James A. Harding (see Valentine and Hicks in Kingdom Come).]

If it is not a legal requirement to take up a collection for the poor and the kingdom of God in the assembly on every first day of the week, should we continue the practice? Do we have “authority” for such?  And for what should we use it?

What regulates the assembly?  Is it positive law?  I think not.  Rather, it is the gospel. [Valentine, Melton and Hicks discuss this question in the last chapter of their book A Gathered People.]

I would suggest that both life and assembly–or perhaps better stated, assembly as one aspect of life–is regulated by the gospel.  The gospel is not understood here as a set of commands, prescriptions and positive laws.  Rather, the gospel is the Christ Event (the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus).  The criterion is not a particular text in Scripture as a postive law but rather the mystery of Christ revealed who shapes our lives and assemblies. Our lives and assemblies should be “worthy of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27),  that is, they should image the reality of God in Jesus.

So, the question, then, is not where are the laws regulating or governing how we conduct our assembly with regard to a “financial” plan for the church.  Rather, the question is whether contributing money in the assembly embodies or images the reality of God in Jesus. Is a weekly contribution “worthy of the gospel”?  I think so.

How do we know whether it is “worthy of the gospel?”  Well, it means asking the question whether contributing to the poor embodies the gospel, is consistent with the gospel, and flows from the gospel? Does it bear witness to the gospel? Is it the gospel in action?

Since the gospel is the Christ Event (it is the good news of the kingdom of God for the poor that arrives in Jesus), we are asking whether contributing to the poor as a communal act in the assembly embodies the good news of the kingdom, is consistent with it, and flows from it.

It seems to me that the answer is rather obvious. Jesus ministered to the poor. He became poor for our sakes and asks us to sell our possessions and give to the poor. The gospel is good news for the poor. If this is the meaning of the gospel in relation to the poor, then for the community of Jesus gathered in the name of Jesus to contribute to a common fund for the poor is an act worthy of the gospel.

I often feel that our moment of giving in the assembly is underemphasized. It is tacted onto the Lord’s Supper or made part of the announcements. It almost appears as an afterthought (though I realize collecting money is never any church leadership’s afterthought! 🙂 ).

I would rather see it receive a gospel emphasis. It ought to be a weekly reminder that our resources do not belong to us. That our resources are not simply for us. Rather, because of the gospel, we share our resources. Because of the gospel, we give for the sake of the poor. This moment in the assembly is a sacred one because giving is an act of grace that testifies to the grace of Jesus in our lives and brings grace (thanksgiving) to God. Our weekly act of giving in the assembly is a moment of participation in the gospel itself!  Does it belong in the assembly?  Of course, just as much as proclaiming the gospel in word (teaching) and eating/drinking (table). It is the gospel in deed just as baptism and the Supper are the gospel in water and wine.

Do we, however, need some “simple rules” or “laws” for giving? Maybe, as a matter of pragmatics. What might those look like? Well, here goes….

When should we give? Whenever we have opporutunity to embody the good news of the kingdom and are blessed with the resources to give. And the weekly assembly is a wonderful moment to give communally as a witness to the gospel as we have been prospered by God’s gifts to us but, of course, it should not be the only moment, especially as God brings other opportunities into our lives. 

Indeed, it might be a turning of CEI on its head to say, for example, I give all my money to the church on Sunday because this is what is required by 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.  I’ve actually heard some argue that we should give to no one or nothing other than the church on Sunday. This makes the assembly and the common fund the only resource of God’s kingdom on earth.  This not only bad hermeneutics, but it is a delimiting understanding of the kingdom and the nature of kingdom work.  Kingdom work is not limited to  church treasury funds!

Where should we give? Wherever there is a need to which the good news of the kingdom is an answer, and not merely in the assembly. Giving is a lifestyle; it is gospel living. It is not merely an act of the assembly.

We have been so “assembly-oriented” or “assembly-focused” that it is easy to forget that our gracious, giving and self-denying lifestyle is the essence of discipleship rather than a single contribution on Sunday.

How should we give? Give freely out of our resources by whatever means our resources permit us to give for the sake of the good news of the kingdom. If we merchandise the gospel (that is, sell the services of the gospel), we deny the nature of the gospel as a gift. So, I don’t charge for baptisms.  🙂 However, if I can run my business so that its profits, or its commodities, or its services might serve the kingdom of God, I see no problem. If the government is willing to fund a day-care at my congregation (unless the nature of the strings attached deny the gospel), I am will to help low income families provide care for their children. I think the principle is so broad that fundraising or the receipt of funds is open-ended as long as any such receipt does not deny the gospel to which we want to bear witness and embody in our world.

Remember, however, that “gospel” here does not refer to a constructed pattern out of the rules of CEI. Rather, it refers to the ministry and work of Jesus (the Christ Event).

For what should we give? To anything that serves the goals of the kingdom of God–anything that furthers the ministry of Jesus in the world. If it participates in the purpose of the gospel itself (to seek and to save the lost, to reverse the curse, to heal the sick, feed the hungry, give justice for the oppressed, etc.), then it is a worthy object of our giving and a worthy object of the common fund of the community. The kingdom is served in a myriad of ways: contributions to adoption agencies, inner city youth programs, hospitals, educational institutions, etc., etc. The kingdom is served by salaried ministers, buildings that are used rather than sit empty six days a week, etc, and when they are used for the goals of the kingdom, then they are worthy objects of our giving and worthy objects of the common fund of the community (the church treasury, in other words).

When we use some abstract notions of “institutionalism” or “denominationalism” to deny helping those who are furthering the ministry of Jesus, who are serving the poor, who are feeding the hungry, who are clothing the naked, who are protecting the oppressed, etc., then it seems to me we have exalted our own inferential opinions and patternistic constructions above the basic work of the gospel itself. To say, for example, that a church cannot contribute from their treasury to an institution caring for  hungry children is to place the “pattern” (constructed out of our inferences!) above the the ministry of Jesus himself.  Now, that is a crying shame.  May God have mercy. 

If the poor are Jesus in disguise, can we imagine a situation where we cannot contribute from the church treasury to “X” (any institution) that is caring for the poor because Jesus has given us a pattern that congregations cannot give to human institutions in principle?  In that way Jesus denies ministry to the poor to his own church!

I understand that my institutional brothers and sisters have many other issues at work here such as counter-culturalism, radical sectarianism (in the sense of noninstitutional orientation), etc.  But the ultimate effect, it seems to me, is to deny the church the opportunity to do the ministry of Jesus through institutions or organizations or ministries that are helping the poor. 

And this is not just a problem for “institutional” brothers and sisters since I have heard many within “mainline” (institutional) Churches of Christ argue similarily–the church can’t give to X because it is not the church or the church won’t get the credit, etc.  I would suggest that when the poor are helped, God is glorified.  But enough of my “soapbox.”

My point is that there are no postive laws that govern the collection and use of the common fund of the community. Rather, there is the gospel, how that gospel is embodied in Jesus himself in his own ministry, how Israel and the early church practiced the good news of the kingdom, and what the good news of the kingdom is.

The Christ Event, the good news of the kingdom of God, shapes our giving. We are invited to participate in the story of God in Jesus. Whatever object or means of giving serves and embodies the ends of the kingdom of God is God-honoring. Instead of searching for laws to delimit our giving, the gospel demands we seek out opportunities to “do good” among all peoples and nations.

When the Pharisees objected to Jesus’ healing ministry on the Sabbath because it broke Sabbath traditions (laws), his response was: “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12).

When well-intentioned people haggle over the details of how, when, where and for what to give as a community (over what comes out of the church treasury or cannot come out that common fund) based on legal regulations or positive laws or church patterns, I tend to respond: “It is lawful to do good with the Lord’s money.”

Indeed, it is all the Lord’s money. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to embody the gospel and participate in the gospel by doing good with his money in every way we can and at every opportunity we have whether collectively through a common fund or individually.

Rejecting 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 as a prescriptive positive law regulating how the church should give, but embracing it as an arrangement by which the church might be the instrument of God’s grace to others (as so intepretered by 2 Corinthians 8-9), by what hermeneutic do we discern our relationship to the poor or our responsibility to the church’s financial responsibilities?

Hermeneutic for the Poor

Christ Event. Jesus is the image of God in the world. And Jesus priortized a ministry to the poor. Luke 4:16ff is programmatic for the ministry of Jesus. It is his Messianic mission–to preach good news to the poor. This includes a compassion for the poor to alleviate their suffering and needs. It is the language of Jubilee where all debts are released. The poor are no longer poor. Indeed, Jesus explicitly called his disciples to “sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Luke 12:33a; see an earlier post).

Church. The church is the body of Christ in the world. And the church in Acts prioritized a ministry to the poor. Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-37 illustrate how dedicated the Jerusalem church was to sharing with the needy among them so that there would be no poor within their community (see an earlier post). They did what Jesus called them to do.  They sold their possessions and gave to the poor.

Israel. We could also move back into the history of Israel (redemptive history) for further illumination since God intended that there should be “no poor” among them (Deuteronomy 15:4 which is echoed in Acts 4:34). Israel, like the Church, was to function as a redemptive community that redeemed poverty within the community and assisted others as well (“aliens” in Israel, for example, and “do good to all” as per Galatians 6:10). Deuteronomy 15 is illustrative of this for Israel as well as other texts scattered throughout the Hebrew canon (e.g., Amos and Hosea).

Luke-Acts. Returning to the framework of Luke-Acts, what Jesus–as the true remant of Israel and the image of God–“began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1), the church–the body of Christ–continues doing and teaching. We follow Jesus, the true Jew who is also the Son of God.

Given the data that Jesus’ ministry was a ministry to the poor, that this value was practiced and prioritized in Israel and the church, how do we live that out today? Understanding this value, we must commit ourselves to embodying it today. How do we move from then to now?

Analogous Method. We may think analogously as we seek to imaginatively invest our community’s present life with the meaning and value of the Christ Event. We must imaginatively place ourselves within the story (metanarrative or theodrama) of Scripture so as to participate in the mission and ministry of Jesus. In other words, given the theology of the Christ Event (and how the communities of faith in Scripture lived that out) and given the different situation in which we live as community, how ought that theology be lived out in this new situation?

We are not given specific rules and regulating laws for how to do this. Rather, we are given a story in which to participate, a life to imitate, and examples of earlier communites of faith–both in Israel and early congregations–to emulate. We embrace the gospel, watch how the gospel was embodied in the early chruch, and–with that guidance–seek to embody the gospel today. As Richard Hays notes (Moral Vision of the New Testament, 302), “the normative function of this narrative [Acts 2 and Acts 4] is still metaphorical in the sense I am describing: in this text, we are given neither rules for the community life nor economic principles; instead, we are given a story that calls us to consider how in our communities we might live analogously, how our economic practices might powerfully bear witness to the resurrection so that those who later write our story might say, ‘And great grace was upon them all.’ The Word leaps the gap.”

Simple Hermeneutic?

What is a “simple” theological hermeneutic? The most basic answer is:  imitate Jesus as he imitates God.  The incarnate life and ministry of Jesus is the pattern that is the image of the Pattern (God). 

But how do we know what this means?  We understand it, I think, through discerning the theological dynamic (or substance) that is the Christ Event, observing how that substance has been lived out in Israel and the early church, and applying that substance to our own circumstances.  We read the text, discern the theology [the Christ Event as the imaging of God lived out in Israel and the church], and apply the theology.

Discerning and applying the theology is not filtered through some kind of patternistic lens that looks for positive laws to govern the life of believers and the community since these nowhere appear within the apostolic writings. It is not what they intended to do.  Rather, discerning and applying the theology entails identifying the paradigmatic Christ Event (which the apostolic writings narrate, interpret and apply as the poets and prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures anticipate), observing how Israel in a typological way and the church in fulfillment lived out the values of that Christ Event (redemptive-historical concerns), and how, thinking analogously, we can live out those same values in our own context in a way the embodies the Christ Event analogous to how the early church did.

At bottom, the contemporary church is not a replica of the Corinthian, Jerusalem, or Roman churches. It is not identical–our context is different, for example.  Rather, the contemporary church seeks to be an analogue of the Corinthian, Jerusalem and Roman chuches, that is, to embody and live out the Christ Event in our day as they sought to do in theirs. We do not replicate or duplicate the Corinthian church (or a constructed “ideal” church from the New Testament that never actually existed–nor would we expect humans to actually realize such ideals or perfection). Rather, we proclaim the gospel, live worthy of it, and thus become an analogue of those churches in the New Testament. What we have in common is the embrace and embodiment of the Christ Event itself though our embrace is often weak and our embodiment always flawed. Only Jesus himself–the incarnate body of Christ–is the true and perfect “church.”

So, the method is simple (I think), but also profound (profound because of the “mystery of the gospel” involved), as:

1. Discern the mystery (reality) of the Christ Event (the gospel).
2. Discover how this mystery was lived out in Israel and the Church to illuminate the potential practical outworkings of this mystery.
3. Analogously live out those same values in our context.

On the topic of the poor, meaning that:

1. The incarnate Jesus became poor to minister to the poor, calling his followers to care for the poor.
2. Israel and the Church sought to have no poor among them and act benevolently toward the poor.
3. Analogously, we live and give in such a way that there are no poor among us and we minister to the poor in our communities.

Pretty simple?  At one level, yes indeed. Follow Jesus in serving the poor and observe how redemptive communities in Scripture lived out that value for guidance in serving the poor today. What potentially complicates this is if we expect to find specific positive laws that regulate the how, when, where and why of this service to the poor. If we expect to find a specific positive law about what to do with money put into the church treasury, then we will probably find one.  But I would suggest that this expectation distorts the story and turns us away from thinking about embodiment (how to live it out; how to participate in the story) to how to construct (and obey) the pattern. It is much more simple to follow Jesus by embodying his ministry to the poor as a community of faith.

But at another level, living this out, finding ways to authentically minister, and having the heart/integrity/love to actually sacrifice for the poor (“sell our possessions and give to the poor”) is a difficult agenda for comfortable, materialistic and self-absorbed American Christians. Simple, but extremely problematic. It demands denying our selves, picking up our cross and following Jesus.

It is better to give than to construct legal regulations for giving.

Prayer

“Father, increase our faith. Give us the heart to share with and minister among the poor as your Son did. Give us the wisdom to see how to do that in ways that display your glory and proclaim the good news of your kingdom.”

May God have mercy, and may he give us the grace to give rather than arguing about the “laws of giving.” 

(P. S.  So, what is the practical answer–however–to giving on the first day of the week?  Should we or shouldn’t we?  For what purpose? For what use of the money? More to come…..)

Fortunately for us, Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 do not stand alone. In another letter to the Corinthians, chapters 8 & 9 of what we call 2 Corinthians, Paul felt compelled to further encourage the Corinthians to follow through on their commitment to the poor saints in Jerusalem.

This is fortunate because we have a wonderful opportunity to observe how Paul attempts to persuade the Corinthians to contribute to the needs of a group of people unlike themselves–the potential recipients are economically deprived (poor), ethnically Jewish (racial bias), geographically distant (why should we help people way over there?), and politically distinct (Jerusalem was synonmous with Jewish nationalism). Paul attempts to persuade wealthy Gentiles in Achaia to help poor Jews in Jerusalem. There is tremendous ethnic and nationalistic prejudice lying beneath the surface of this venture. There is much to overcome here.

We have the privildege to overhear how Paul theologically grounds the collection for the saints. We see the inner workings of Paul’s theology as he provides a theological-biblical rationale for the collection itself. We see Paul’s own hermeneutic at work–its biblical base, theological grounding and specific application.  Perhaps it provides some guidelines (even model?) for how we should do our own hermeneutical work.

What He Does Not Do

He does not command the Corinthians to give.  He explicitly states: “I am not commanding you…” (2 Corinthians 8:8).  It is not a command, but a “test” of the “sincerity of their love.”   I think I would rather have a command myself!  Give me a command; give me some specificity; tell me how much.  I can do that.  But to act out of the authenticity of my love is much more demanding.  It calls me to imitate God, to be like God, to share like God.  My selfish heart would rather have a command to tithe.

He does not demand they obey the pattern some think is in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.  Paul does not remind them of the “prescription” (as some would call it) of his previous letter.  He does not illuminate the pattern.  He does not give details about how this is a pattern within the new covenant, that it is necessary to obey to be a faithful church, and he does not describe the pattern or itemize its particulars. He does not specify the laws that govern this “act of worship” and remind them of the dire consequences of neglecting it. This would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to explain to the Corinthians (if he had not previously) how their congregation must follow the pattern that God showed Paul just as God showed Moses the pattern for the tabernacle. Perhaps he does not do this because there is no such thing like what God showed Moses.

He does not draw a line in the “fellowship” sand concerning the collection. Paul does not make their contribution a matter of fellowship or communion with him.  Their lack of participation would be an embarrassment, it would be a failing, it would be a lack of grace on their part, but it would not be a violation of some legal pattern.  The failure would be the failure to imitate Jesus and not the failure to practice the pattern many have envisioned.

In other words, Paul does not do what many CEI patternists tend to do and have done on countless Sundays over the past century.  Paul does not say, “you are commanded to give every first day of the week, and if you don’t you are not faithful to the pattern God established.”  How often have we heard every Sunday, “We are commanded to give on the first day of the week.” Historically, Churches of Christ have been concerned to outline the “laws” that govern or regulate the practice of giving; to insist on everyone giving every frist day of the week as part of the assembly because it is part of the pattern for the church. We isolate 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 in order to fit it into the puzzle we are trying to solve, that is, the pattern we are seeking to construct (the patternistic temple we are building).  We treat 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 as a legal prescription that belongs to the exclusive pattern of “five acts of worship” instead of recognizing that it is actually one among many embodiments of the grace of God overflowing through us into the lives of others. The latter is how Paul viewed it, but the former is what Enlightenment Baconian Regulative Constitutional Patternism has created.

What He Does Do

So, what does Paul do hermeneutically to encourage the Corinthians to contribute to the fund for the poor saints in Jerusalem?  This deserves much more attention than I can give in a single post.  Nevertheless, below is a brief outline of Paul’s thoughts.

Ultimately, Paul does not use a two-step method such as “This is the legal pattern; do it.”  Rather, he calls us to the grace of God, embracing its meaning and embodying its practice.  It is the theology that calls us, not a legal pattern.  Paul’s theological exposition, I think, reflects the (1) theological substance of God’s own life; (2) the redemptive-historical practice of that life among God’s covenant people; and (3) the metanarrative (or symbolic world) that is the story of God among his people.  For a fuller picture of these three categories, read my post that summarizes them.

1.  Fundamental Theological Substance:  Grace.  There are ten occurrences of the term “grace” in these two chapters (8:1,4,6,7,9,16,19; 9:8,14,15)–the highest concentration in the New Testament.  Giving is a “grace” God gives which rebounds to God’s own praise and thanksgiving.  Literally, the text affirms that God gives “grace” to us so that we might “grace” others with the result that “grace” is given to God–God graces us to grace others who, in response, grace God.  It flows from God’s own life and character to his people so that it might flow through them to others and thus back to God. The purpose of ministry (8:4; 9:13) to the poor is to glorify God.  Whether the poor are known or unknown, Jew or Gentile, is unimportant, the primary motive is the glory of God in mutual fellowship. We do not give to the poor out of mere compassion for the poor as if it were some humanistic duty, but that God might be glorified and that we might participate in God’s own life and ministry. God’s own grace (creation, providence, redemption; cf. 8:9, 9:8-11,15), and the glory that will rebound to him, are the theological values which motivate gifts to the poor.  Giving to the poor embodies a commitment to the grace of the gospel itself (9:13).

2.  Redemptive-historical application:  Reading the Christian story through the lens of Israel. Paul draws on redemptive history in at least three ways in this text.  (1) God’s gift of manna in the wilderness exhibits the principle of equity: the needy will be supplied out of the abundance of the wealthy so that all may have what they need (8:13-15).  (2) He quotes Psalm 112:9 (2 Corinthians 9:9)–the paradigm of the “blessed person”–as a model for the wealthy sharing with the poor, that is, God has given us seed (wealth) to be scattered. The redeemed community should imitate God’s own scattering of his gifts to the poor (Psalm 111 blesses God and the righteous person of Psalm 112 is a mirror image of God’s attributes described in Psalm 111). (3) Deuteronomy 15 lurks in the background as the language is very similar. Just as God had blessed Israel so that there should be no poor among them, Israel should give generously without a grudging heart (Deuteronomy 15:10; 2 Corinthians 9:7). Paul uses the language of Deuteronomy 15 to encourage the Corinthians.

The redemptive story continues among the churches of God. Paul draws on the model of the Macedonian disciples in order to convict the Corinthians and wants the Corinthians to be an example to others (8:24). The on-going story of God among the Macedonians teaches the Corinthians too!

3.  Theological Center: The Christ Event. The incarnation itself, however, is Paul’s primary paradigm–Christ became poor that we might become rich (8:9) which is God’s indescribable gift (9:15).  He does not command in this text but tests their love because they should know the love of Christ who became poor for their sakes.  If Christ did this for the Corinthians, then they should do this for the saints in Jerusalem. We follow Jesus into poverty in order that the needs of others might be supplied.

Conclusion

We see Paul’s hermeneutic at work here.  He does not lay down a pattern–“This is the way the church ought to do ‘X’ as a legal pattern; so, do it this way.”  Rather, he seeks to instill in his readers a theological dynamic–a way of looking at the world through the eyes of God–which moves them to give as God gives.  No pattern is offered except what God himself has done. This is what we emulate; this is what we imitate.  We imitate God; we imitate Jesus who is the image of God.

Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate the theology embedded in the Moasic law and redemptive history. God has always been the same–he loves the poor, calls his people to care for the poor, and share their resources with the poor so that there are no poor among the people of God. Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate the Macedonians because they display that theological dynamic.  We are not called to reproduce or duplicate the churches of the New Testament. Rather, we are called to imitate them as they imitate Jesus who is the image of God. That, to me, is the essence of a more simple hermeneutic.

How do we follow Paul’s hermeneutic or use it as a guideline for our own thinking?  What does that look like? More to come…..stay tuned.

In this post I will consider the use of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 among Churches of Christ as a legal prescription or pattern for weekly giving as an act of worship in the Sunday assembly. My purpose is to illustrate the use of the CEI hermeneutic to establish biblical authority. In my next few posts I will offer an alternative hermeneutical approach.

Stone-Campbell Historical Perspective

Alexander Campbell, like many British dissenters before him and even John Calvin himself, believed Acts 2:42 provided a guideline for Christian assemblies. He identified “the fellowship” as the sharing of monetary resources (or, the contribution). In his Christian Baptist series on the “Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things” he authors only one article on “The Fellowship” (January 2, 1826, 209-211). “The contribution,” Campbell writes, “the weekly contribution–the distribution to the poor saints, we contend is a part of the religion of Jesus Christ.” He bases this conclusion on 1 Corinthians 16:1-4: “That every christian congregation should follow the examples of those which were set in order by the apostles, is, I trust, a proposition which few of those who love the founder of the christian institution, will question. And that the apostles did give orders to the congregations in Galatia and to the Corinthians to make a weekly contribution for the poor saints, is a matter that cannot be disputed.”

While Campbell believed “the contribution” was an apostolic institution, he did not think his version of the “Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things” should be used “as a test of christian character or terms of christian communion” (Christian Baptist, September 3, 1827, 370). He thought it was apostolic practice, but it was not a test of fellowship.

In contrast to Campbell’s attitude, between 1865-1875 a legal attitude developed regarding worship activities in the assembly based on the notion of “positive law.”  In 1870, H. Turner asked the question “Does the New Testament determine the elements of the public worship?” His answer was that there are “five public acts of worship” (the first time I have seen that phrase in Stone-Campbell literature): teaching, fellowship, breaking bread, prayers, and singing (Christian Quarterly, January 1870, 250-258). This became an exclusive and required list because “in all acts of worship, we must do only what is prescribed in the New Testament” (Moses Lard, “True Worship of God,” Lard’s Quarterly 4 [October 1867], 395). “The original worship, in all of its items,” Benjamin Franklin wrote, “must be maintained or all is lost” (“Distinctive Plea,” American Christian Review 14 [5 December 1871], 388).  The “five acts of worship”–without subtraction or addition–became a legal test of a faithful Sunday assembly. It was, apparently, all or nothing in terms of worshipping in “spirit and truth.”

In 1865 Albert Allen wrote a landmark article for Lard’s Quarterly (“The Contribution,” October 1864, 64-72) in which he articulated a clear hermeneutic for the contribution as a prescribed weekly act of worship in the assembly. Acts 2:42 suggested to Allen that the contribution was apostolic practice.  Consequently, “we may presume,” Allen wrote, “to find some law regulating the observance of this duty, and the object for which done” (my emphasis; p. 69).  [Did anyone hear the Reformed reguative principle in that statement?] Allen presumes that if it was an apostolic practice, then it must have specific legal regulations. Why would he presume that? Because the Baconian method, the Regulative principle, and a constitutional literary model demanded that every practice have some legal regulations. Consequently, since he saw 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 as that regulatory text, he identified the laws of giving as: 

1. That it must be done on every first day of the week.
2. That the amount thus obtained was to be put into the treasury of the church.
3. That each ought to give as he was prospered of the Lord

George Austen, in a follow-up article on “The Contribution” (Lard’s Quarterly [April 1865], 264), suggested that the “laws which govern” the contribution must identify “time, place, circumstance.”  These are:

1. On the first day of the week (every week).
2. When assembled with the church.
3. As the Lord has prospered the worshiper.

In addition, Austen understood this “fixed law of God” as intended for the “wants of the poor and the furtherance of the gospel” (p. 265).

If God intended the contribution as an “act of worship,” according to the hermeneutical presuppositions, then somewhere Scripture must regulate this. Consequently, Bible study meant searching Scripture for the “regulations” or “laws” that governed this act of worship.  Identifying the act of worship in Acts 2:42, Allen and Austen found the regulative laws in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. If this text does not regulate the contribution, then no text does and it becomes an unauthorized act to take up money in the assembly on Sunday because every act of worship in the assembly needs prescriptive authority…so the argument goes. Since congregations take up a contribution, and everyone agrees that this is a good thing, then there must be prescriptive authority for it and regulatory guidelines somewhere in the New Testament concerning it!

During the 1870s the segment of the Stone-Campbell Movement  ultimately identified as “Churches of Christ” became solidified in their understanding of the “five acts of worship” as an exclusive legal requirement for faithful churches. The weekly contribution is one of those acts and without such an act in the weekly assembly there is no true worship. A church must have a weekly contribution to remain faithful and keep their candlestick in the presence of Jesus.

God, then, has specificed when, who, and how  we should support the financial needs of the kingdom of God.  But did he specify for what?  Well, that becomes quite controversial among Churches of Christ in the 20th century.

The Pattern Argument

Roy Deaver, “The Corinthian Collection–God’s Financial Plan for His Church,” in Studies in 1 Corinthians, ed. Dub McClish (Denton, TX: Pearl Street Church of Christ, 1982), 263-71) provides a good example of the pattern argument from 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. There are, of course, many other examples of this argument.

Deaver’s presuppositions are important.  In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, “Paul (inspiration) sets out God’s financial plan for his (God’s) churches. These instructions were not given for the Corinthan brethren only” as 1 Corinthians 4:17 states that Timothy will remind the Corinthians about his “ways which are in Christ, even as” Paul teaches “everywhere in every church” (p. 264).  The argument, then, is that whatever Paul taught the Corinthians, he taught every church.  Whatever is taught every church is normative for all churches throughout history. Therefore, every congregation today must collect money during the Sunday weekly assembly.

The assumption is that what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 is what he teaches in “every church.” Interesting, is it not, that he had not previously taught the Corinthians about it until this letter and then only in response to a question from the Corinthians (“now concerning…”)? They had to ask a question about the collection of money, but if Paul had previously taught the Corinthians his “ways” (Timothy was to remind them) then they should have already known.  Apparently, “God’s financial plan” was not part of the “ways” that Paul was talking about, that is, it was not part of what Paul taught in every church.

Deaver argues tht Paul commanded a specific arrangement–on every first day of the week every person (or family unit) must contribute to the church treasury (“treasuring up” or “storing up”) according to how God has prospered them.  “This is God’s plan for financing his work. God’s plan is the best plan, and God’s plan is the only right plan” (p. 269).

The text is explicitly occasional and specific–a collection for churches in Judea from Gentile churches (Galatia and Achaia–it does not include Macedonia). It appears as an expedient arrangement in the context of Paul’s third missionary journey. Indeed, it seems Paul introduces a new practice in response to a question from the Corinthians about how to proceed with the collection. It may be that there were no other churches practicing this and it appears that the Galatians and Corinthians were not practicing it prior to the instruction. There is also considerable ambiguity in the text about what it means to “store up” (treasury or putting personal money aside?) and where (home or assembly?). The verb understood as “command” by Deaver has more the force of setting up an arrangement (e.g., do it this way or putting things in a particular order) rather than an imperative that derives from the nature of things (or the character of God).  If it is a command for all churches, why are the Macedonians not included in this arrangement (2 Corinthians 8:1-5), and–in fact–he does not intend to command the Corinthians at all (2 Corinthians 8:8).

Hermeneutical Questions

But let’s grant the exegesis offered by Deaver, that is, corporate weekly Sunday giving into a common fund for the poor in Jerusalem.  While I exegetically tend to favor this understanding, it is not certain; there are some ambiguities in the text (e.g., did they put it aside at home or was it given in an assembly).   Rather, I want to raise some questions about the hermeneutical use of this text to construct a pattern.

Broadly, the argument assumes that everything Paul “commands” Corinth is something he commanded all of the congregations he planted. It further assumes that everything he commands Corinth (and every other congregation he planted) is normative for every congregation in the history of the church, including congregations today.  In other words, it is the Texas two-step–Paul commands X, therefore we do X.

More specifically, the use of this text within patternistic constructionism illustrates how one discerns the pattern, including the limits and boundaries of the patternl and how complicated that process is. Indeed, it is a process that would be unavailable to the Corinthians themselves when the read their own letter since they would not have the full resources that the hermeneutic demands in order to discern the pattern in the text.

1.  Is the purpose for which the church gave an exclusive one?  This collection was for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Should Sunday contributions be limited to such since this is all that is specified in this authorizing text?  One might say that this is a specific application of a generic principle, that is, the church may use this method in order to meet any legitimate need and is not necessarily limited to this specific need (cf. Guy N. Woods, Open Forum, 1976, p. 356).  The legitimate need would thus expand to include buildings, ministerial salaries, janitorial staff, landscaping, international evangelistic work, etc. Here is where the complexity arises. One must decide what is generic and what is specific because within the hermeneutic whatever is intentionally specific is exclusive of all other coordinating particulars (e.g., “sing” excludes “play” because “play” is a coordinate of “sing” under the generic category of “music”). So, what is specific and what is generic in this text? What does the generic include? How does one identify the generic? How does one determine “legitimate need” according to the pattern?

A result of this discussion has been divisions over whether to use church funds to put a kitchen in the building, whether to support full-time preachers, whether to building gyms, whether to fund social/recreational activities, etc. Churches have divided over those issues as they attempted to discern the “pattern” inherent in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.

2.  Is the contribution into the common fund something exclusive to Sunday? The text specifies the first day of the week and reading it within the context of the epistle there is no other time specified. Is the “contribution” as an act of public worship is limited to Sunday only in much the same way that the Lord’s Supper–based on one text in Acts 20:7 (the only text that identifies the specific day as “first day of the week”)–is limited to Sunday only for many within Churches of Christ? Here is where the complexity arises.  The contribution is not limited to Sunday if one can find examples or infer principles from other texts within the New Testament that one might also take up a contribution on other days of the week.  Consequently, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 does not limit giving to Sunday because there are other examples or principles that negate such a restriction while Acts 20:7 limits the Lord’s Supper to Sunday because there are no other examples or principles that negate that restriction. But is there any clear, explicit example in the New Testament of Christians giving on any day other than Sunday? Even if there was, this would not have been available to the Corinthian readers and apparently Paul had not taught them about “timing” previous to this text.

While it has not been a common point, I have heard it argued on occasion that churches should not take up a collection on Wednesday evening because it belongs only to Sunday (my father was one of these at one point in his life). I have heard objections to missionaries taking up collections, for example, on a Wednesday evening because there is no authority in the New Testament for the church to do such a thing except on Sunday. I have even experienced the compromise that a collection would be taken up after the closing prayer of the Wednesday evening service so that it would be “officially” an act of public worship but a contribution by individuals.  Given the patternist concern and their deep conviction to be biblical, I understand their point! Unfortunately, those who do not know the “common sense” method, think the whole discussion is frivolous.

3.  Is a free will offering the only way a Christian may give to the common fund?  To put it another way, are other forms of fundraising excluded by this specific injunction in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4? Does this specific exclude all other forms of collecting money? Again, the complexity rests in the nature of the specific/generic construction.  Is this free will offering on Sunday a specific of a broader generic (e.g., Corinth, like Galatia, should raise money this way but it does not mean it is the only way to do it) or is it a specific that excludes any other coordinate fundraising method? The method proposes that if there are not other examples of fundraising then the silence regarding other methods verifies the exclusivity of this method.

This, too, has divided churches and created aggitation within congregations.  May the Youth Group conduct a car wash to raise money for a mission trip or to feed hungry children?  May a Bible Class host a Yard Sale on the church parking lot to supplement the church budget? May a church buy a house and then sell it for a profit to supplement their budget? May a church put their money in a CD to earn interest on their money?

4.  Must Christians give every week? If the text is a legal prescription, then Christians must give every week in the assembly.  They cannot use bank drafts (because it is not in the assembly), or give monthly, or give annually.   We might say that they give as they have been prospered and if they are paid monthly, then they give monthly.  But this does not fit the specifics of the text itself–it “commands” the Christians to give every week in the Sunday assembly. Is the specific indeed a real specific that excludes other alternatives (monthly, annually, etc.) or is a generic principle that includes other alternatives? The complexity of the hermeneutic forces us into another seemingly frivolous discussion.

While I have not known any church divisions over this point, I have it heard it passionately discussed. It is the fruit of the hermeneutic that whether a believer gives to his congregation annually, monthly, bi-weekly or weekly becomes a point of passionate contention about worshipping in “spirit and truth.”

Perspectives

My point in this post is not to offer an alternative reading of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.  Rather, it is to understand the presuppositions, assumptions, particular exegetical decisions, and the complexity of the process by which Churches of Christ have generally concluded that:

Every Christian ought to contribute weekly to the common fund (treasury) of their local congregation, every congregation ought to take up a weekly contribution as part of their Sunday assembly as an act of worship necessary for faithful assembling (worshipping in “spirit and truth”), free will offerings are the only legitimate method for raising money for the common fund of the congregation, and the common fund is only for the legitimate needs of the church’s life and ministry.

I wonder if Paul had all that in mind when he penned 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. (And there are still questions unanswered–how do we determine a “legitimate need,” for example?) The CEI method–seeking a pattern, determining the nature of what we must find, and applying conceptual distinctions to the text that are alien to it–forces Paul to say this.

Ultimately, the method (regulative principle, CEI, Baconianism, constitutional literary model, etc.) decides not only what the apostles practiced, but also determines for Scripture what it must tell us about what they practiced.  If they practiced “fellowship,” then Scripture must tell how, when, for what, and where they practiced it so that we might legally conform to the pattern in the text. We presume Scripture must do this because we read Scripture as Baconian hermeneuters through the lens of a constitutional literary model. In other words, the method tells Scripture what Scripture must provide.  And if we go to Scripture expecting to find X (when, for what, where, and how), we will probably find it, even if it is not there.

At bottom, the method abuses Paul’s words and makes him say something he did not say.

Is there a better way of reading and applying those words?  I think so…but that is for the next couple of posts.  This one is already too long.

“It ain’t that complicated.”

My recent series on “theological hermeneutics” may seem complicated. I may have made it look complicated. But I don’t think it is complicated at all.

The method for which I argued does call for inductive Bible study, reflection, contemplation, holistic thinking, attention to the plot (metanarrative) in the theodrama, prayer, communal dialogue, and participation in God’s story. The more difficult part is living out the story rather than understanding it. Complications most arise when our sinful natures resist embracing God’s intent for our lives or we look for something that is not there (expecting something that God did not provide).

Spiritual Process

Understanding the divine drama within Scripture and discerning the divine intent for our lives is as much a spiritual as an intellectual act. Our sinful natures blind our intellects and debilitate our spiritual sensibilities. Consequently, every hermeneutical adventure must begin with prayer.

Every hermeneutical act participates in the cosmic and spiritual struggle to embrace and embody God’s intent for us. Through it we seek to discern the kingdom of God at work in the world and in our lives.

The agent of this spiritual work of God is the Holy Spirit.  The role of the Spirit in redemption is the application of that redemption to the life of the community and individuals, and this includes spiritual transformation. Good hermeneutics is part of that transformation. God created us for hermeneutics (see my series on that point), but chaos corrupted its goodness. The Spirit transorms our hearts and minds to read the Story “better,” that is, we understand, internalize, apply and live it.

We can hinder that process by our attitudes and heart, but the Spirit can also overcome our cognitively misguided hermeneutical conclusions by the power of his transforming presence. In other words, we might have a terrible cognitive hermeneutic, but yet live transformed lives. But the reason for transformed living is not found in how well we have understood everything correctly, but because God has been at work in us. The whole person reads the text, and the Spirit works on the whole person (volition, affections and intellect). Every aspect of the human person needs the transforming work of the Spirit, including our intellects as we read Scripture.  Sin affects our minds and our minds need the Spirit’s redemptive work not merely to read Scripture but to know God more deeply.

Insight is something the Lord gives. For example, after Paul encouraged Timothy to “be strong in the grace that is Christ Jesus” and used various analogies to press his point upon his son in the faith, he paused to ask Timothy to “reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this” (2 Timothy 2:6).

We read and then we reflect.  In this hermeneutical process, God will give the insight. It is a synergistic or cooperative act between God and his people.  God gives his witness through Scripture and we read the text. And then we reflect on the text relying on the wisdom God provides because we are assured that God continues to act through Scripture to give insight. God is active not only in the giving of Scripture but also in the interpreting of Scripture through the presence of his Spirit. God gives the fruit of wisdom to those who listen, to those who have ears to hear.

Many think this introduces too much subjectivity in the hermeneutical act.  But subjectivity is part of the process; it is unavoidable.   This is does not mean that there are no objective or empirical boundaries (see my “Created for Hermeneutics” series), but it does mean that discernment, internalization and application involve subjective dimensions of the mind and heart.  There is a danger in both rationality and subjectivity, but locating the hermeneutical work of the Spirit in sanctification and transformation reminds us that it is a process of growing into the image of God in Christ by the power of the Spirit. Both rationality (cognitive thought) and subjectivity (personal reflection) need the transformative presence of the Spirit to lead us to God.

One of the objections to this understanding is that if the Spirit helps us read the Bible, then why don’t we all read it alike? The Spirit is our sanctifier and is at work in believers to lead them to holiness.  But we don’t all have the same level of holiness.  We should not expect more in the hermeneutical arena than we also find in the moral arena. Seeing hermeneutics as part of the broader theological topic of sanctification reminds us that we are all in process, that no one has it completely right, and there is always room for more depth, discernment and insight. There is always room for more growth in understanding as well as holiness. At the same time, there is also room to see a broad consensus or agreement between believers who discern the same theodrama in Scripture and at work in the world today. We confess, for example, that the Father created the world, the Son became incarnate for the sake of our redemption, and the Spirit transforms us into the image of Christ. That is no minimal consensus but the structure of the metanarrative itself!

Simple or Complex?

At one level, I believe the hermeneutical process is quite simple. At another level, it is quite profound.  The Gospel of John, for example, has many simply stated truths but they are nevertheless deeply profound in meaning.  Just as the words and meanings of Scripture can be both simple and profound, so the process is as well.

But profund does not necessiarly mean complex or complicated.

I have argued in an earlier series that the “Command, Example, Inference” (CEI) method of Churches of Christ within the Stone-Campbell Movement is quite complex. It has all kinds of hidden rules about “binding examples,” implied commands, generic/specific categories, prohibitive vs. permissive silence, the law of exclusion, etc.

None of these “rules” are spelled out in Scripture. Rather, they are extraneous rules applied to the text of Scripture from a different hermeneutical paradigm than the literature of Scripture evidences. These rules do not emerge from the nature of Scripture itself, that is, they do not emerge from the genre of the literature. Rather, the rules emerge from the combination of (1) a Baconian framework, (2) a legal goal (what is “authorized”) that invokes a legal hermeneutic designed for legal texts, and (3) a constitutional literary model of Scripture.

I suggest that the understanding and application of those rules is a complicated process that is nowhere near “simple.”  It is only “simple” to those schooled in the rules as if they grew up speaking that language; for them it is “common sense.” For those who were raised with CEI as a hermeneutical method the application of the method is as “simple” as speaking English and they can’t understand why those who speak Spanish don’t understand its simplicity.

But the history of Churches of Christ reveals the illusion. It is not simple. Our history is strewn with divisions over the application of this method–one or multiple cups at communion, Bible classes or no Bible classes, may assemblies be divided, handclapping, instrumental music, Bible Colleges, use of church treasury, kitchens in the building, etc., etc., etc.  All involved the tweaking and use of CEI. The application was not so simple.

A More Simple Way?

My series has assumed that Churches of Christ are at a hermeneutical crossroads.  On the one hand, we may continue the task of “constructing a pattern” out of the details (data) of Scripture and then implementing (obeying) the pattern. The pattern is not there per se. We must discern it, isolate the data, rearrange the data, and put it into a system (pattern) which we can duplicate.  Thus, we have “five steps” of salvation, “five acts” of worship, and “three works of the church” (evangelism, benevolence, edification based on Ephesians 4:12).

We generate the true “marks of the church” such as membership rules, worship rules, polity rules, etc. None of these appear in the text as lists, systems, or rules. Rather, we construct them according to the hermeneutical process we know as CEI.  These are the rules that are regulated by “positive law” (though we may no longer use that term in the 21st century) and are thus necessary for a faithful church, authentic fellowship and “sound doctrine.”

On the other hand, I have been suggesting that we do something which I believe is much more simple but yet also profound.  I have suggested that we:

• Read Scripture to discern the theological substance (identify the metanarrative).
• Apply that theological substance to our context (recontextualize the metanarrative)
• Live that substance as participation in God’s story (participate in the metanarrative)

How does that work practically? Well, that is what I hope to illustrate in this series. 

Through prayer, the transforming work of the Spirit, and communal dialogue, perhaps we can read Scripture in a way that enables us to participate in the theodrama to which Scripture bears witness. This is my hermeneutical goal and I hope this series will draw us into the story so that we might embody the metanarrative in our own lives for the sake of the world in which we live.

More to come next week (I hope)…..after a brief trip to the Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio and the Hall of Fame game! 

Shalom

In the first half of 2004, the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ (Family of God) in Nashville, TN, pursued a congregational-wide study entitled “Women Serving God.”

There were some preliminaries in the Fall of 2003, but the main focus was the Spring of 2004. This involved many different venues–sermons, Bible classes (Sunday and Wednesday), small groups, focus groups, leadership meetings, etc. Some of the resources utilized are now available online.

The homilies by Rubel Shelly, John York and Wes Crawford are available. There were four in January 2004 entited (1) The Creation Story; (2) Women in Israel; (3) Jesus’ Life and Teaching; and (4) The Early Church.

The Sunday Morning Bible Class teaching material that paralleled the sermons is available on my Bible Class page. The series is entitled “Women Serving God: Four Lessons.”

I have just uploaded the Wednesday Evening Bible Class series in the Spring of 2004 to my Bible Class page as well. It is entitled “Women Serving God: Eight-Lesson Dialogue.” There were multiple participants, each given credit in the teaching outlines, but the class was conducted by Mark Manassee (at the time a chaplin at Vanderbilt Hospital and presently the preaching minister at the Culver Palms Church of Christ in Los Angeles) and myself. We are primarily responsible for the outlines which represent both the complementary and egalitarian positions. The outlines are suggestive and general; they are not detailed presentations of positions. We hope you can learn from them but remember they are trajectories rather than formal position statements. In addition, they were written four years ago and opinions may have developed or changed since then.

Mark and I worked well together as well as with guests (mostly women in the Woodmont Hills family) who shared the lectern with us in the classroom. We attempted to represent both sides of the question in fairness and love. Our dialogue was healthy, engaging and productive of good will. There was no hostility or animosity though we disagreed on certain points. I felt it was a model of Christian dialogue about some difficult questions. Mark and I are still friends! 🙂 Imagine that! Especially after discussing such a “hot” and often divisive topic. Love does cover a multitude of disagreements.

I will see you next week after a restful weekend with my wife.

Shalom

John Mark

Is the hermeneutical move from Scripture to application a “Texas Two-Step” or something else?

Two or Three?

By “Texas Two-Step” I do not mean the country/western dance that moves in sync with 4/4 time.  🙂  I am referring to the basic hermeneutical practice of moving from Scripture to application in “two steps.”

1. Step One:  The text says “X”
2. Step Two:  Therefore, we do “X”

This hermeneutic serves a form of restorationism that seeks to reduplicate the New Testament church just as it appears in the New Testament. Do what they did; it is the “safe” way to restore the church. They did “X” (the text says), and therefore we must do “X” (according to hermeneutical and patternistic assumptions). I regard this as a kind of naive primitivism which no one really practices but is nevertheless the rhetoric of Churches of Christ in the 20th century.

But it was never that simple. As we saw with Baconian induction/deduction, it has been far more complicated than that within the heritage of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Indeed, J. D. Thomas’ We Be Brethren laid out the principles for generic/specific, inclusion/exclusion, etc. The rules for understanding the nature of prohibitive silence, laws of exclusion, binding examples, implied commands, etc. are not explicit in the text itself but involve a process of discernment by which we decide in which cases we will do “X” just like Corinth (or Rome or Jerusalem, etc.) did “X” and where we will not do “X” just as they did (e.g., covered heads). In other words, there was always an intermediate third step.

1. Step One:  The text says “X1” and “X2”
2. Step Two:  “X1” is something intended for the church universal but “X2” is not.
3. Step Three: Therefore, we must do “X1” but “X2” is optional.

Step two is the essence of “theological hermeneutics.”  It is a theological step. It is a process by which contemporary readers of Scripture discern the normativity of ethics and ecclesial practices in order to become the community God intended in creation and will bring to fullness in the Eschaton. Step two is about theology, that is, the substance that arises out of the metanarrative that forms us into the image of Christ.

Within Stone-Campbell hermeneutics this middle step is often hidden and sometimes even denied. Nevertheless, it is present in every hermeneutical conclusion.  For example, Churches of Christ have concluded that Scripture mandates that the Lord’s Supper be eaten every first day of the week and only on the first day of the week.  But Scripture never explicitly says this. Rather, we proceed with a multi-step method to get there.

1. Step One:  The church in Troas ate the Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
2. Step Two:  Assumptions–(a) Troas did this every first day of the week [Paul waited seven days, right?–and certainly not because that is when the ship left. right?]; (b) the text functions to exclude other times because it records this occasion [what it does not include it excludes]; (c) there are no other texts which indicate a specific time for eating the Supper [denying Acts 2:46 or the Lord’s on institution of the Supper on Thursday evening apply to the question]; (d) Troas’ eating assumes an implied command to eat on the first day of the week [though no such command appears anywhere in the New Testament]; (e) since the Supper is commanded, there must be somewhere in Scripture where we are told when to eat [thus dictating what Scripture must tell us, and if it must tell us, then we will find it!], etc.
3. Step Three: Therefore, faithful churches eat the Supper only on the first day of the week and every first day of the week.

It is important to note the nature of Step Two in this example.  Here Step Two applies legal reasoning as if the text is a legal genre. It does not involve a theological reflection on the fact that Troas ate the Supper on the first day of the week and neither does it read Acts 20:7 within the Luke-Acts narrative. Rather, it treats the event as a legal precedent and thus Step Two functions as a legal rationale with a legal hermeneutic.  But Acts is not a legal document; it is a narrative. Step Two, in this case, violates the simple reading of the text in straight-forward grammatical-historical fashion as a narrative. The traditional hermeneutic actually complicates the text rather than simplifying it. The complexity of the traditional hermeneutic is actually quite astonding once one engages the discussions that have surrounded CEI and its applications (how many cups at the table? are Bible classes authorized? the complexities of the instrumental music discussion in terms of generic/specific and expedience/element distinctions, etc.).

This does not mean that all intermediate steps within Churches of Christ were purely legal. Sometimes there is theological reflection and sometimes there is cultural discernment (e.g., most Churches of Christ don’t require covered heads when women [silently] pray in the assembly). But when it comes to ecclesial practices, it usually is a matter of legal reasoning based on hidden hermeneutical and theological assumptions about the role of positive law in the Christian faith, the nature of Scripture as a legal (constitutional) document, and the function of Scripture to provide “legal authority.”

An Alternative Second Step

When approaching a particular text in Scripture, I suggest an explicit and self-aware “three-step” hermeneutical method.  Again, “steps” are pedagogical devices and not timeless rules. And the number “three” is not sacred either (except in terms of Trinity!). In fact, we can make the three steps into fifty, I suppose.  Yet, I think there are two basic moves:  from (1) text to (2) theology, and then (2) theology to (3)application.  Below I proffer a possible way of thinking through a text theologically along with a simple example (which could be pursued in much greater depth than I do here) that dovetails with my previous post on methodology.

Example Text:  1 Timothy 2:9-10.

Step 1:  The Affirmations of the Text:  Exegesis.

Contextualized Significance:  What did the text call them to do?  Women should dress with “decency and propriety” which means they should not wear clothing that is ostentatious or reflects their noble status.  The context is probably a worship assembly, or at least, the lifestyle of the Christian community.

Contextualized Meaning:  Why did the text call for this behavior?  Women ought to give evidence of their piety (theosebeian) through good works rather than through their social standing.

Step 2:  Normative Substance of the Text:  Theology.

Theological Substance:  What theological substance inheres within the text’s meaning? The substance is humility/service as the proper evidence of one’s piety.

Redemptive-History:  How is this substance reflected within the theodrama?  The problem is not expensive clothing per se, or attention to beauty,  but the attitude which divides people according to class and social status.  The principles of redemptive-history reflect the union of God’s people in humility rather than along the lines of social standing  (cf. Amos 4:1-3; 6:1-7).  Arrogance translates into social injustice and luxurious lifestyles (Ezek. 16:49-50; James 5:5).

Theological Center:  How does it cohere with the theological centers of the theodrama? Fear of God and humility are paired in Scripture (cf. Prov. 15:33; 22:4).  Humility versus pride is a dominant theme in Scripture (Prov. 3:34; 11:1; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5).  The basic attitude of worship is humility (Is. 66:2; James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:6). It is the recognition that we creatures rather than the Creator, and as creatures we share the task of imaging God in the world. We see in Jesus himself the display of humility and service rather than pride and luxury.

Step 3:  Application of Meaning to Modern Audience:  Homiletics.

Meaning Recontextualized:  How does this substance translate into contemporary culture?  The Christian lifestyle must be a humble one (shall we say “simple” one?), and in the context of the worship assembly humble dress is demanded.  Issues of economic lifestyle and modest dress are culturally relative.  The theological substance, however, rejects pride and extravagance among God’s people.   

Significance Recontextualized:  What does the theology of the text call us to do?  It calls us to dress and live humbly in whatever cultural setting in which we find ourselves.  What does this mean for American churches and Christians? Anyone dare go there in their leadership within a church? Can we really hear the call of this text in our own setting? Dare we obey it?

This is a fairly simple illlustration though it is not without questions itself.  For example, is the theological principle really about humility/service where the problem was the ostentatious dress of women in Ephesus or is the problem more about seductive dress (the accessories of prostitutes)? Perhaps we don’t have to choose since either flows from the fundamental notion of “modesty.”

More importantly, this text illustrates that our modern applications do not always reproduce the Pauline application. Paul’s application excluded gold and braided hair from godly female dress, but we certainly don’t exclude such today (e.g., wedding rings).  I don’t think this is a problem.  Rather, it reflects the point that what we apply to the modern believer is not the text itself (“don’t wear gold”) but what we apply is the theological substance of the text (e.g., modesty, humility, service). The applications may vary according to circumstances, cultures and time, but the substance remains the same. And the substance remains the same because it is rooted in the theological reality of God himself revealed within in the theodrama.

What’s the Point?

If, in practice, everyone does at least a three-step, is not everyone following the same hermeneutical method?

Actually, no.  For my purpose, the significant difference between the traditional Stone-Campbell hermeneutic (the “hidden” three-step) and what I have proposed above is the substance of the second step.  While the traditional hermeneutic basically construes the second step as a legal maneuver in order to discern legal authority through a legal hermeneutical lens, I suggest we see the second step with a theodramatic lens.  In other words, instead of seeking “legal authority,” we are seeking how to participate in the theodrama in ways that embody the divine intent and goal.

In essence, I am suggesting metanarrative theology is the substance of the second step rather than constitutional law. The theological hermeneutic is to discern the character and mission of God through the theodrama as it culminates in the Christ Event. This discernment, then, enables us to recontextualize that theological substance for our contemporary world.

Why Such a Long Series?

My intent is not to be original. Indeed, I have learned much from others, and I believe that in many ways this is how Paul himself, for example, read Scripture. He read it with the lens of theological substance through the prism of Christ. [Perhaps I need a series on that to illustrate my point?]

I have often heard the critical barb that while many spend their time in deconstructing the traditional hermeneutic (CEI), nothing is ever offered in its place.  I don’t think this is accurate.  What it reflects is that the only hermeneutic that is deemed legitimate is the one the critics already practice or will reach the same conclusions that they cherish (e.g., any hermeneutic which does not conclude that instrumental music is sinful can’t be right).  Anything else, of course, is not as simple, not as coherent, not as practical, etc.  Anything else is not a hermeneutic at all.

This is unfortunate. I believe many writers such as Tom Olbricht (cf. Hearing God’s Voice) or C. Leonard Allen (Cruciform Church, especially the new edition) have offered hermeneutical alternatives.  They are not CEI–and that is the problem in the eyes of critics–but they do offer a way of reading Scripture that moves away from the Baconian assumptions of CEI as taught and practiced by traditional Churches of Christ.

So, my point in this series as been to offer an alternative–a way to read Scripture theologically.  My formulation is not set in stone; I’m still thinking about parts of it.  I have written this rather hurriedly as a daily discipline.  It is not perfect.  But it is, I think, suggestive of a better alternative.

Shall we read Scripture as constitutional law through legal hermeneutical criteria for Step Two?  Or, shall we read Scripture as a theodrama which calls us to participate in the story in ways that image God? Which, in fact, is more coherent with the nature of Scripture itself, Scripture’s own self-description, and its own language? Which one is more biblical?  Which one is more faithful to the nature of Scripture itself?

I’ve given you my answer.  You will have to answer for yourself.

In my concluding hermeneutical series–to come shortly after I take a break from this topic–I will attempt to illustrate the method that I have advocated in this series.  In other words, finally, I will get practical.  🙂

Shalom

John Mark

Okay, maybe I’m not ready to go with the intensely practical as yet….my bad!  But I think the following methodological outline of a theological hermeneutic is a fairly simple one.   I will wait for the “rubber-meets-the-road” kind of ecclesiological discussions of the theological hermeneutic (which is, historically, what really interests the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement) for my next series.  But we are drawing closer to a fuller explanation of the kind of theological hermeneutic I have in mind.

In one sense I don’t like “steps” (except when climbing a steep slope) because they tend to oversimplify an integrated process or they mechanize a dynamic process. Nevertheless, they are useful as a pedagogical device (which is the origin of Walter Scott’s five-finger exercise: Believe, Repent, Be Baptized, Remission of Sins, Gift of the Holy Spirit). But, we must remember, the steps should not be disconnected but rather seen as an organic process; steps that reciprocally shape each other–more like a spiral than a staircase.

Step One: The Theological Drama Within Scripture

We read Scripture through the lens of its fundamental theological drama which, of course, we only know through reading Scripture, living within the community of faith, and listening to the story of the church’s faith (e.g., The Rule of Faith).

Thus, we begin with the basic metanarrative of Scripture–the drama of God creating his good cosmos, pursuing his rebellious people, redeeming his broken cosmos, and consummating his redemptive purpose in the Escahton through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is our theological frame for reading Scripture and it is the frame that has shaped our reading of Scripture through the consensus theology of the church summarized in the “Rule of Faith” (Irenaeus’ version is available in his Against Heresies 1.10.1) or “Apostle’s Creed.”

It is important to note that the Apostle’s Creed is little more than a summary of the baptismal confessions of early Christians in the second and third centuries. It is a credo(“I believe”) that acknowledges the Creator God, the divine presence in Israel through the prophets, the Christ Event (birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension), and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit to form a community of redeemed people awaiting the resurrection and eternal life. It is a summary of the biblical theodrama.

This metanarrative reveals the theocentric nature of the drama, the Christocentric means of its accomplishment, and the pneumatological mode of its application. In essence, it reveals the character of God and the involvement of God in the comos. These are the theological baselines for any reflection on the Christian faith with the intent of living out the story of God in our present world. The metanarrative is the ultimate commitment and criterion for ecclesial faith and practice.

Step Two: Textual Affirmation as Guide

What Scripture affirms is our guide. We certainly read it with theological commitments and a dramatic frame that we have received through the Rule of Faith, but it is also something we read with an eye toward deepening, adjusting, correcting, or interpreting that Rule of Faith. Scripture–as the original interpretation of God’s mighty acts–is the norming norm though we read it in continual dialogue with the Rule of Faith as well as the continuing tradition of the church.

A. Historical-Grammatical Exegesis.  This category covers lots of ground. It includes the simple reading of the text by children as well as the complex reading of the text by scholars of Hebrew and Greek. 

At one level, what the text affirms serves as an empirical boundary for understanding. There are elements in the text that are as “objectively there” as the tree in my front yard.  For example, Jesus of Nazareth lived and died. To deny the text affirms this is as unrealistic as to deny that there is a tree in my front yard. For more on this point, see my series “Created for Hermeneutics” on my Serial Index page, particularly post III.

At another level, what the text affirms is accessible to readers whether scholars or not. “The Rule of Faith,” for example, is something readers may discern as a summary of what the text affirms. “Scholarship” is unnecessary at this level.  It is a matter of reading the text, believing what it affirms and doing it. Believers through the ages have lived out the meaning of God’s story through spiritual and “common sense” readings of Scripture. “Scholarship”–in the sense of post-Enlightenment critical thought–is not necessary to believe and participate in the theodrama (as long as there is a translated text available 🙂 ).

At a further level, historical-grammatical exegesis as a “scholarly” discipline (with different levels of expertise or utilization; e.g., some know Greek and some do not, but they may all seek a “historical and grammatical” understanding of the text) helps us understand Scripture through the eyes of the original readers of the text. This gives us some guide for affirming what the text affirms and cuts away some of the accretions of tradition heaped on top of a text as well as recognizing how texts can be ripped from their context for the sake of polemics (e.g., “proof-texting”). The goal of this reading of Scripture is to focus on what the text actually affirms in its historical and grammatical setting rather than what it might appear to say if we read it as if it appeared in our daily newspaper in our own historical setting (e.g., “covered heads” in 1 Corinthians 11 would mean something entirely different in Roman Corinth than it would in Dearborn, Michigan).

A Baconian inductivist/deductivist reading, however, tends to read the Bible atomistically, flattens the text, and treats it more like a textbook than ancient history. In other words, it actually undermines a grammatical-historical reading of the text. This recontextualizes Scripture so that the text is made to affirm something it did not affirm and deduce “truths” which it never intended to teach. In essence, while clearly accessing biblical truth at one level, when it reconstitutes that truth by reading the text through the grid of its Baconian inductivist/deductivist reasoning, it sometimes denies what the text actually affirms.

B. Redemptive-Historical Reading.  This is a canonical reading of Scripture which recognizes the development and unity of themes throughout Scripture that is ultimately climaxed in Jesus the Messiah as one whose life and ministry embodies the in-breaking of the eschatological kingdom of God.

This reading assumes an organic unity within the story of God and within the canon itself; it is a canonical reading of the text.  It is not a unity that undermines diversity within the canon, but recognizes a unity that moves throughout the theodrama towards its climax. Practioners of the scholarly historical-grammatical method sometimes do not recognize this unity.  But reading Scripture in a redemptive-historical way unveils a Christological unity to the theodrama.

C. Forms of Theological Expression. Within the Reformed and Stone-Campbell traditions, CEI (command, example and inference) has often been the primary way of categorizing the modes by which Scripture “authorizes” something. It is the way “legal authority” is bestowed upon potential ecclesiological practices.

Categorizations are often helpful and CEI should not be dismissed simply because it is not found exactly in that form within the text of Scripture. What is crucial, however, is that we observe how biblical authors themselves utilize or assume these forms (or categories) for the purpose for which we ourselves claim to use them. This is when it becomes difficult. Without arguing the case in any detail here, I would suggest that there are multiple ways of categorizing such forms and the form “command, example and inference” is not necessarily a bad one in itself. There is no single way to do it and to some extent they all overlap with each other.  The primary issue is how we use them, for what purpose we use them, and the fundamental frame in which we use them.

Since the discussion of CEI is complex (and I have already commented on how it has been used in the Stone-Campbell heritage in previous posts), I will not attempt a comment here. Rather, I would suggest another–more helpful, in my opinion–way of categorizing these uses in Scripture or, as I call them in the heading, “forms of theological expression.”  I find Richard Hays’ four-fold category in his Moral Vision of the New Testament more sensitive to the historical and redemptive-historical setting of Scripture. 

1. Rules — explicit, direct commands or regulations that particular expressions of a principle.  Examples: “Command those who are rich…to be generous and willing to share” (1 Timothy 6:17-18 ) or “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Luke 12:33a).
2. Principles — general considerations by which particular decision are to be governed.  Example: “…work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need” (Ephesians 4:28).
3. Paradigms — stories which model conduct or embody the principles in particular ways. Example: “All the believers were together and had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had neeed” (Acts 2:44-45).
4. Symbolic World –the metanarrative which creates the perceptual categories through which reality is interpreted. Example: “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift” (2 Corinthians 9:15).

When we read Scripture, I think it is legitimate to note these forms of expression as ways of guiding our application of the story of God in our own lives.  They provide guidelines for participating in the theodrama. They are not legal categories to be collated through the lens of a legal brief and then placed into syllogisms to construct a legal blueprint (which is the way CEI has often been used in the Stone-Campbell Movement). Rather, they are scripts of previous acts in the drama that give us direction for living out the script of God’s drama in the 21st century.

What is extremely significant is that each of these forms of theological expression are embedded in particular contexts and thus must be read in a grammatical-historical way.  Further, each of these forms are part of a canonical context (or, redemptive-historical context) and thus must be read in a way that reflects the dynamics of biblical theology. They must not be extracted from their literary and/or canonical contexts in order to construct an system that is extraneous to the metanarrative itself.

For example, commands exist within the nexus of redemptive-history (canonical flow), historical context and specific application. We do not usually think of the commands on a one-to-one equivalency with our own context. We do not practice everything the early church did in exactly the way they did (e.g., one loaf on the table). Rather, through these forms of theological expression we discern what is utilized within the theodrama that warrants a recontextualization of the command to our setting. Paradigms provide an illustration of the principles or an occasion for the implementation of the rule (command) while the Symbolic World provides the theological frame that gives meaning and significance to the rule, principle and paradigm.  Ultimately, it is the Symbolic World that suggests the normativity for recontextualization. The theodrama itself drives us to participation in the story as the rules, priniciples and paradigms guide us in living out that story.

By prioritizing the theodrama (metanarrative or Symbolic World), we provide a check against isolated and abstracted deductions (e.g., a church youth group cannot raise money for the poor through a car wash on church property) or the exaltation of rules to the level of a proof-text (e.g., footwashing in John 13). One way in which the metanarrative or Symbolic World should have regulated our incessant–and perhaps, given the hermeneutic used,  sound–inferences is the conclusion that churches cannot use money from their treasuries to help non-Christians. It seems to me, in light of the metanarrative, this is an absurd conclusion.  God gives to non-Christians all the time; he gave his Son for sinners. The whole theodrama is the gracious gift of God to his rebellious world, even while they were yet enemies.  The metanarrative should have, I think, checked our hermeneutic.  If our hermeneutic legitimately concludes that churches should not help non-Christian poor and the metanarrative shows God’s preference for the poor as well as his gifts to his enemies, then there is something seriously wrong with the hermeneutic itself!

The metanarrative or Symbolic World must judge our hermeneutical inferences, applications of commands (rules) and conclusions.

Step Three: Theological Centers as Normative.

At this point the call is to explore and reflect on what the text affirms, the redemptive-historical location and movement within the text, and the forms of theological expression present through the lens of the centers of biblical theology. Normativity, I believe, is located in these theological centers. In other words, how we live out the story of God in the present is guided by the centers of biblical theology as given to us in the textual affirmations, redemptive-historical locations, and forms of theological expression. It is the theological centers that ground our faith and practice in something more than ancient culture.

In the previous two posts in this series I have suggested that our fundamental lens for understanding and appropriating biblical theology is the Christ Event.  At this point, as a complementary but different angle on the same point, I want to suggest a four-fold lens. 

The function of the lens is to embrace a vision of the character of God revealed through the theodrama. Consequently, it is a theocentric focus–it is to the praise and glory of God.  At the same time, it is also Christocentric as the means for knowing God since he reveals himself in Jesus and the Incarnate One “exegetes” the Father (John 1:18). Jesus, as the image of God, is the embodiment of the character of God and  pursues the mission of God. The lens, then, points to the character and mission of God as it is revealed in the Christ Event. Another way of saying that is with a 4-Cs:  Creation, Community, Christ, and Consummation. There are, of course, other ways of saying this, but this is a good pedagogical handle for me–and the aliteration helps too. 🙂

1. Creation-the divine intent. God created community, intended humanity represent (image) him in the world, and to fill the earth with his glory (humans who image him in caring for the cosmos).
2. Community–whether in Israel or the Church, God intended a kind of community where there are no poor or needy; a community that shared life together and shared the task of imaging God in the world, a redemptive community in a fallen world. Through Scripture–through his messengers, prophets, etc.–God seels to shape his community into that redemptive community that bears his image.
3. Christ–God entered the world as flesh and lived among us. He is the image of God; he is the true human just as he is truly (authentically) human. He is what humans are supposed to be in a fallen world. His ministry is the ministry of true humans. The incarnation answers the question what would God do if he were one of us.
4. Consummation (New Creation)–the divine goal. What is God’s kingdom climax? This is the world that God will ultimately recreate. It is the kind of world that should intrude into the present–the eschatological reality should be present in the church. The church should be shaped by the divine eschatological goal.

At the center of these themes is imaging (imitating) God which we discern through following Jesus and practicing the kingdom of God which has already arrived in the community of disciples.

Conclusion

I know I have left this “hanging” a bit. I have not yet illustrated the method or brought it to bear on historic issues in the Stone-Campbell Movement.  But this post is already too long (over 2500 words) and so I will have to pursue the illustrations and applications in another post (or series).

Patience, my friends.  🙂  Besides, I have to figure where I have left myself in this mess.  If you’re confused, take heart–so am I.  🙂

I offer this methodology for thinking theologically about any particular theme or communal practice in Scripture. What I offer, however, is neither comprehensive nor complete but a theological trajectory. I hope to get more practical with this in the next few posts.

A Basic Methodology

First, and foundationally, the Christ Event (incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension) is the focal point.  It is the root and ground for living out the story of God.  This is a multi-dimensional point and therefore is pregnant with meaning and significance.

At one level, we consider how any particular theme or practice is present in the ministry of Jesus itself, that is, how Jesus lived out the story of God.

At another level, we consider how any particular theme or practice is rooted in the theological essence of the Christ Event, that is, how biblical interpreters of the event identified, interpreted and applied it.

At a third level, we consider how any theme or practice is an expression of the divine intent in creation (e.g., imaging God) and the divine goal for creation (e.g., eschaton). 

Second, as we see the one who is true Israel living out the story of God, we also look into the history of Israel itself for the theology and practices which anticipate or are fullfilled in the Christ Event.

Third, as we see the one who is the image of God living out the story of God, we also look into the history of the church as given in Scripture for the theology and practices which are the continuation of the Christ Event’s meaning and significance among the disciples of Christ.

Illustration

It probably comes as no surprise that I would choose the sacraments to illustrate my theological hermeneutic.  I admit; it is an interest of mine.  🙂 The below illustrations are very cursory and superficial, but hopefully they indicate the direction in which my thoughts flow.  For greater detail on each, I would suggest reading my books on each of the sacraments  (Come to the Table, Down in the River to Pray [co-authored with Greg Taylor], and A Gathered People [co-authored with Johnny Melton and Bobby Valentine]) . And everyone needs to buy their own copies!  🙂

Baptism is rooted in the baptism of Jesus, anticipated by the water rituals and types of Israel, and practiced by the early church as a participation in the gospel of Christ.

In terms of the Christ Event…

Ministry. The baptism of Jesus is the first Christian baptism. At the water, Jesus was declared to be the beloved Son of God, anointed with the Holy Spirit for ministry, and dedicated himself to the will of God as a disciple of the Father. As disciples of Jesus, we follow him into the water and experience the same–declared to be children of God, anointed with the Spirit and dedicate ourselves to discipleship.

Gospel. Our baptism is theologically rooted in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Romans 6:3-4 affirms that baptism is the means by which we participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is a “gospel” moment in that we participate in the gospel (die with and are raised with Christ) through baptism. The explicit connection between baptism and the gospel is not an identification of the two as if they are the same thing–baptism is not the gospel, but it is an experience of the gospel, a means for participating in the gospel. I include ascension because of the language in Ephesians 2 where we are “raised up with Jesus” to sit in heavenly places with him. We reign with Christ and thus participate not only in the eschatological hope of the resurrection but in the eschatological reign (kingdom) of God.

Creation and Eschaton. Our baptism is an entrance into–and an experience of–communion with the Triune God that is both intended in creation and consummated in the Eschaton. Thus, it is part of the Great Commision of Matthew 28 which describes baptism as a movement into the divine fellowship (“into the name of”). Baptism serves the divine intent of transforming us into the image of Christ and the divine goal of communion. Baptism displays the oneness of the community as reflection of the oneness of God himself and the oneness of the body of Christ.

In terms of the history of Israel, there are stories/events within Israel’s Scripture that function as types of the baptismal experience in the gospel (e.g., Noah, Moses and the Exodus). But further the baptisms contained in Israel’s covenant with God anticipated the the function of baptismal waters in the new covenant (cf. Hebrews 6:1-2; 9:10; 10:22; Leviticus 15:1-33; 16:4, 24).

In terms of the history of the church, the disciples participated in the baptism of Jesus by continuing the practice of baptism in their evangelistic work as a means of forgiveness, forming community and experiencing the transformative presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Lord’s Supper is rooted in the table ministry of Jesus, anticipated in the fellowship meals (offerings) of ancient Israel, and practiced by the early church as a participation in the gospel of Christ.

In terms of the Christ Event…

Ministry. Jesus, as the presence of God in the world, ate at the table with both sinners and “righteous.” His table ministry was a concrete parable about the kingdom of God and his table ministry demonstrated “kingdom table etiquette.” At his last table before his death he called his disciples to continue to sit at table with each other as fellow-servants, and after his resurrection he himself ate with them in continuation of his table ministry.

Gospel. Table is about communion, and it is a communion in the gospel (body and blood) of Jesus Christ. We commune with each other and with God because of the altar (cross) and this communion is vibrant because we commune with the living Christ (resurrection) as we sit at his table in his kingdom. We sit as reigning kings at the table of the King in the already-but-not-yet kingdom of God (ascension motif). It is sanctifying nourishment and transforming participation in the gospel.

Creation and Eschaton. God created us for communion and he intends to fully establish that communion in the eschaton. The table is an experience of the eschatological reality in the present which is a fulfillment of the divine intent in creation that was detoured by our own brokenness and sin. The table is a renewal that divine intent in the present and an anticipation of the Messianic Banquet to come.

In terms of the history of Israel, the sacrificial system instituted a rhythmic experience of table at the festivals and through individual sacrifices (e.g., fellowship offerings). God met his people at the table after the sacrifice of the altar. The people “saw” God as they ate and drank in his presence.

In terms of the history of the church, the disciples continued the table ministry of Jesus in their own communities. They shared their food, resources and fellowship through the table–a place where the rich and poor were to share the grace and communion of God as one body.

Assembly is rooted in the communal habits of Jesus, anticipated in the rhythmic cycle of Israel’s assemblies, and practiced by the early church as an experience of the gospel of Christ.

In terms of the Christ Event…

Ministry. Jesus participated in the festivals and weekly sabbaths of his community, but his participation was not merely as an attendant. Rather his presence–as the presence of the incarnate God in the community–transformed those festivals and sabbaths into the presence of the in-breaking kingdom of God. He is the light of the festival of lights; he is the bread of the Passover; he is the new temple of God himself. He gathers a people “into” his name and assures them that he will be present among them just as the glory of God was present in the temple of Israel.

Gospel. The incarnation is a partial fulfillment of God’s presence among his people, and the outpouring of the Spirit after the ascension of Jesus is another partial fulfillment that presence. In addition, as the ascended high priest seated at the right hand of God, Jesus invites us to draw near to the Father through his blood and enter the Holy of Holies as we assemble with believers whose hearts have been sprinkled by that blood and their bodies washed in pure water. Christology grounds our entrance into the presence of God–both through the indwelling of the Spirit and through assembly where the Spirit dwells within the body to mediate our “ascension” into the throne room of God to worship with the saints and angels gathered there.

Creation and Eschaton. That God intended to dwell with his people is a key theme throughout the plot of God’s story. It begins in creation where the community of God created a community to share the communion of love, and God walked in the Garden with his community.  It is also the end of the story where God dwells with his people in the new heaven and new earth so that there is no need for a temple to mediate or locate God’s presence.  Rather, the fullness of God dwells with his people in the Eschaton as the goal of his redemptive work in the world.

In terms of the history of Israel, the sacred assemblies of Israel in Leviticus 23 established a rhythm of divine presence within the community. These assemblies were types of future assemblies gathered into the name of Jesus and fufilled in Jesus himself.

In terms of the history of the church, disciples gathered to break bread, pray, praise and hear the story of God. Their gatherings were not mere occasions of mutual edification but participations in the eschatological reality of the heavenly throne room.  When they gathered, they gathered to God and Jesus by the Spirit; they joined the festive assembly of the angels; they joined the church from all over the world and the saints already around the throne. They gathered in the Holy of Holies, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of God (Hebrews 12:22-24).

Concluding Note

I admit that I “waxed” a bit “theological” (some may think “good,” some may say “huh?”) and perhaps impractical in this post, but at the root is something very simple and practical to which I hope to turn in my next post in this series.