As I said in response to Greg's post, I am inclined to say that there is validity in trying to restore something of the NT church, even though that doesn't mean restoring their patterns of practice. I'll admit I'm still a bit fuzzy on what that might be. One reason I'm convinced that it's worth searching for is that God decided to give us Acts and the NT epistles. Our goal of emulating Jesus (and that is our goal, is it not?) does not exclude emulating the early church. If it did, the NT would need only the Gospels. Rather, the example of the NT church helps us to know how to emulate Jesus. It's analogous to 1 Cor. 11:1.
I appreciate Mark's comment to Greg's post. I think he hit the nail on the head. I really have no idea what hermeneutic to aim for. Someone help us out. I know a few things that need to change, but I don't have a coherent understanding of what needs to replace them.
Here are a few thoughts on practicalities. In other words, these thought won't help us arrive at a better hermeneutic, but rather will help us frame it as we seek to put it into practice.
- A Neo-Restoration hermeneutic needs to be packaged simply. A complex ivory tower solution will do little to help real churches, unless we work on a completely top-down denominational hierarchy. The Church of Christ focus on the priesthood of all believers, which I think is largely a healthy focus, demands that this hermeneutic be available to all. Command, example, and inference may have many weaknesses, but one strength is that it is simple to say, simple to understand, and (relatively) simple to execute. The ordinary guy on the pew can use it as a tool to figure out what the Bible means to his situation. Whatever replaces it will have to be similarly accessible.
- We must realize that Churches of Christ are not homogeneous. Rural traditional churches still constitute a majority of the movement, while large suburban churches gain more and more impetus toward general evangelicalism. The middle ground is being stretched dangerously thin. Many progressive congregations have already given up on the old hermeneutic, without thoughtfully replacing it. It will be tempting for us (i.e. future ministers) to lead this left wing of churches to a better hermeneutic, abandoning the right wing in the process. I'm not interested in being a part of that kind of move. Our challenge will be to help the entire movement come to a more solid hermeneutical foundation. Is not unity a key goal in this whole question?
- Speaking of unity, a NR movement is inadequate if it can't see further than the Churches of Christ. Isa. 49:6 is completely appropriate. Salvation to the ends of the earth is vital. But let's realize that restoring Israel and Judah is also no small task - it encompasses many more denominations than just the Churches of Christ. I understand that God has placed us in this fellowship right now, but if our goal is simply to bless the current Churches of Christ, we contribute to a sectarian mindset. I appreciate the example of the earliest RM leaders who strove to win anyone that would listen, even whole congregations, regardless of denominational affiliation.
4 comments:
I really should be writing a paper . . .
So, I put down some initial thoughts about the hermeneutics over on Greg’s blog.
I think that an attitude of godly dissonance will lead us toward a hermeneutic. The problem with any hermeneutic is that it attempts to place all scripture under one rubric. But a God who defies definition cannot reveal himself in words that can be easily understood. I see that one of the major problems with Command, Example, and Necessary Inference (CENI) is that is assumes that all of Scripture can be understood by those three categories. Such broad categories must have exceptions. It is in the exceptions that we can redeem CENI. I think that most of us would agree that a good portion of the time we can apply CENI to Scripture and come back with a workable interpretation. But there are exceptions to the rule that prevent CENI from being a comprehensive hermeneutic. What if we accept the exceptions? What if we are alright with our hermeneutic not being wholly adequate? What if we live with the dissonance of a God who cannot be comprehended seeking to make himself know to us?
Your thoughts are helping me to refine my own.
So, I say that we can redeem CENI, but only through humility and mystery.
Humility will lead us to always be open to a new reading of the Scripture. I remember my preacher when I was growing up making a claim from the pulpit and then saying, “but don’t take my word for it, you check it out for yourself.” That has been a major force in my biblical understanding and interpretation. No person’s interpretation is beyond scrutiny; we are all humbled before the revelation of God.
Mystery will allow us to accept those scriptures that are not easily interpreted by the CENI hermeneutic. It is alright to not have an answer. It is acceptable to not know exactly what a scripture means. I think it was Dr. Fortner at the WB West Lectures who was talking about the meaning of a passage (I forget exactly which one) and depending on how a word was translated it could have a variety of different meanings (e.g. the Logos of John 1) and he said, “Why can’t it mean all of those things?”
Brian McLaren spoke at the Zoe Conference in 2004 and he made some observations about his own faith heritage that were similar to ours. One that has stuck with me is: The followers of great and innovative people will adopt the practices, but not the attitude of innovation.
When it was first proposed CENI was an innovative idea. It radically changed the face of the church and biblical interpretation. Instead of Scripture being interpreted by the denominational leaders and creeds, it was now interpreted by the “priesthood of all believers.” But, instead of carrying on the bold tradition of innovation, the next generations of leaders in the RM merely solidified the teachings of Campbell, Stone, etc.
I propose that we need to humbly scrap the unwritten creeds of the RM and to reject the interpretations that have been dictated by the denomination. We need to freshly approach the mysterious Word of God and claim our own interpretations and free those we teach to do the same. CENI covers a lot of the Bible, but where it fails we will humbly employ the tools at our disposal (Historical-critical exegesis, knowledge of church history, and the indwelling Holy Spirit) to enter into the mystery of a God that cannot be comprehended by human minds.
James, I'm beginning to imagine that mystery was your controlling motif. I'd write more, but I am writing a paper....
You know, the weird thing is that is wasn't my motif at all. I think it was just cathartic for me to write about something that didn't really have anything to do with any of my papers. Also, it's so nice to just write my opinion and not have to cite anything.
Danny (and others),
I wanted to ask if you have taken already both Hist of Am Restoration Mov and Theological Hermeneutics at the grad school? Greg's "Neo" idea isn't new, actually. CoC scholarship has been writing and dialoging about this type of thing for at least two decades now. This blog here has an informative articulation:
http://brenhughes.blogspot.com
Jeremy
Post a Comment