Something About Hermeneutics and Anti-ism (Eating in the Building; Use of Church Funds)

Steve has a couple of individuals that are curious about things like “eating in the church building” and restrictions on how to use church funds. While these are – in some ways – two separate issues, they ultimately stem back to the same basic problem. Let's see if we can't make some sense of this . . . And, I'll warn you: this is a longer piece by necessity.

First, we need to understand that the basic, underlying issue is a “hermeneutical” one. That is, the interpretive method is what is promoting these queries. Let me explain . . .

In a previous and distant year, there was a plea for “restoration.” This was largely a movement within the United States. It was with good intentions, but several “good” men started calling attention to the need to get “back to the Bible” and to allowing it – and it alone! – to guide our thinking. (Of course, who would seriously challenge or question such an initiative?!) But, the problems quickly surfaced after this “plea” started becoming realized . . .

Questions arose about the need of a “Missionary Society.” Others introduced “instrumental music” in worship. Some started debating whether or not the saints could support “orphan homes” out of the church treasury. Others insisted on using a single container on the Lord's table. Issues like this could easily be duplicated. How should one proceed?

By saying that the issue is an “hermeneutical” one, I mean to say that there is a “paradigm” or an “approach” that drives these questions. (That's not just a problem for Steve's friends – it is a “truth” for all of us on these issues! [If I am an “atheist,” then my “atheistic paradigm” or “atheistic approach” will obviously “gear” the way that I approach these questions – of course, I'd shrug them off and think no more about them. If am a “liberal Christian” – whatever that might mean to us! – I might simply say that “grace” covers everything and not concern myself with the matter. If I am a “conservative Christian” – whatever that might mean to us! – I might pursue the matter a bit further and think about why these actions might be “right” or “wrong.”])

Here, I think we need to understand the “approach” or the “hermeneutic” that drives some to think that it is “objectively wrong” to “eat in the church building” or that it is “objectively wrong” to give money from the “church treasury” to non-saints or orphan homes (“parachurch organizations”?). The argument – yes, the argument – runs something like this . . . “There is no authority for 'x' . . . therefore, 'x' is sinful.” That is the argument. (I don't mean to be rude, but the other “arguments” – if we can be gracious enough to call them such – don't amount to anything.) This argument (“there is no authority”) is the only argument that the view has. To its credit, a casual reading of Colossians 3:17 seems to support it; whatever we're to do in our religious practice needs to have God's “approval” or “authority” behind it. That much seems clear. Let me explain a little more and then stop boring you . . .

The “hermeneutic” that was popularized by some – like Roy Deaver and Tom Warren – in the 1900's is called the “CENI” hermeneutic. (They might not have used that acronym, but it has recently become the popular acronym for the view that they espoused.) It stands for “command-example-necessary inference.” “Those,” we're told, “are the three ways in which scripture authorizes.” So, in order for us to “do” anything religiously, we first must have 1) a command, 2) an example or 3) an implication from the text, which we infer rightly. So far, all of that sounds “nice and neat” . . .

The problem is that the “hermeneutic” fails miserably on a practical level. (Don't misunderstand me – I think it has the right direction in several ways, but taken “rigidly,” it simply abuses the text.) The Bible is NOT “legislation.” Again, do NOT misunderstand me – the Bible “contains” legislation, but “the Bible” is NOT legislation . . . And some of us have been taught, made, forced, to read it precisely as such! Look, whatever else we understand about the Bible, we need to understand this . . . The “Bible” is a COLLECTION of books; it is NOT one “book,” so, naturally, we cannot reduce “the Bible” to only one genre; it is a collection and thus has several “genres.” Why is this important?! Immediately, we should be alerted to what is really going on . . . The Bible is LITERATURE! It is NOT volumes of legal codes. (Again, you and I can both think of parts – parts, mind you! – that include “legal codes.”) But, the “Bible” itself, the collection, is literature and not legal codes. To reduce the entire biblical text to a “legal handbook” is, perhaps, one of the most egregious errors in religious approaches. (See Matthew 19:16-22 where the young ruler approaches the text in precisely this way and is exposed by the Master for having a blackened heart, separated from God because of his romance with his riches instead; he hadn't violated a “legal code” – per se – He was distant from God in heart; he had kept “the law” mechanically, so he claimed, but he hadn't fallen into love with God.) My point is this: if we reduce the Bible to “legal code” only, we miss not only the intent/purpose of the biblical text but we also start using it to promote things that it wasn't intended/purposed to accomplish. Let me continue . . .

I could give a hundred examples of things that are not “authorized” by the text (via command, example or necessary inference) . . . but I'll only give a few . . . I had a friend a few years ago ask me about “whistling” the tunes of church hymns; he wanted to know if I thought it appropriate or not. Admittedly, my first thought went to my grandfather – I'm aware of emotional appeals and their radical difference from logical arguments, by the way – and how he would always be in study, only to “whistle” a tune of “We'll Work Till Jesus Comes” or “Give Me the Bible” when he'd finally take a moment's pause. I responded to the individual that I saw nothing wrong with it. Quickly, the fellow argued that there was “no authority” for such and that “whistling” church hymns needed such in order to be scriptural . . . I thought about this exchange later and thought about the absurdity of the view . . . Could one “keep the beat/rhythm” to a church song by tapping his foot? Could one “tap his finger” to “keep the beat/rhythm”? And, better yet, where did we ever get “authority” from the text to even have songs that have beat/rhythm?! Let me say this . . . Only a preconceived view comes to the text with this sort of approach . . . One DOES NOT read the text and come away with this sort of view; it MUST be taught . . . And some of us have been taught this view in the most aggressive and intense forms possible.

The view of Deaver and Warren would argue that there is “expedience” in some of this, so things like “a beat/rhythm” and “keeping the beat/rhythm” are not explicitly authorized but are “expediting” the command “to sing” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Or, where the text has examples of things like meeting in an upper room or that they had only one container for the fruit of the vine, we were assured that those things were “incidentals,” they were “circumstantial.” But, again, all of this gets dicey . . . How far can we push the “expediting” or “incidental” ploy?! Could one argue for “instrumental music” in worship because it is an “expediting” of the command “to sing”? If we can tap the finger or foot to keep the beat, could we incorporate “instrumental music” for the sake of keeping the melody or key? Bless me, but claiming that we're “expediting” the command or that some things are “incidental” gets to be very arbitrary . . . Here's what happens: we're left to the arbitrary whims or decisions of the individual. This is a “hermeneutical” problem. We need a “method” or “approach” – a “hermeneutic” – that is consistent.

Here's what I think . . . The “Bible” is not a scientific handbook. That is, it teaches its own “hermeneutic” – Jesus is exceptionally pointed on this matter, as He consistently draws both the religious “liberals” and “conservatives” into a conversion of their “hermeneutic.” In other words, Jesus constantly confronts all – both crowds! – to read the scripture appropriately. If Jesus had wanted us to accept “CENI” as “the hermeneutic,” it would have been “laid out” more clearly in a bulleted list. But, that's not how “literature” works; that is how Western science or Western “legal code” works. Whatever that is, it is not literature . . . We need to remember to read the Bible for what it is; it is NOT “legal code” or “meeting briefs,” it is LITERATURE (which does involve a variety of genres). I mean to say that to reduce the Bible to a scientific, sterile, wooden, flat, bulleted reading makes us lose touch with the creative God that has personally reached out to us (a human race) in creative and personable ways. When is the last time that you decided to settle down with a good book to read and grabbed your favorite lexicon or thesaurus?! God hasn't given us THAT sort of book; whatever He has given us in “the text,” it is certainly not that!

We need to remember that the Bible was designed to speak to the human condition. The narrative of Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 37-50) “moves us” to learn about “forgiveness” in ways that “one-liners” cannot – when is the last time that a pithy, “You need to be a forgiving person” moved us in the same way that the “story” – not altogether a bad word, though the liberals have tainted it for us in catastrophic ways – of Joseph or of Jesus has or does?! When is the last time that we learned about the uselessness and destruction of “jealousy” from a mere “Thou shalt not be jealous”? Perhaps, we learned more about the demise of “jealousy” when we read about the extended reign of Saul and how he started on top and gradually-yet-swiftly “fell” because of his problems with his son-in-law, David, God's man after His own heart? To reduce the Bible to “legal code” misses an entire dimension that God has used to speak to our human hearts and conditions. Let me get back to how this connects with our issue at hand . . .

Instead of letting “the text” do its own speaking, we, in many respects, have created our own “hermeneutic” and have started to approach the text with several presuppositions and assumptions that I don't think are warranted. We've come to the text wearing “legal goggles” – which in some ways isn't all bad, since we want to be “legal” before God and not violate His “law” – but we've started transforming the text in unjustified ways into functioning as “law” or “legislation” in places where God didn't intend for it to function as such. We've started observing things like the absence of church buildings, so we've applied our “CENI” hermeneutic and insisted that we start meeting in homes. We've observed that there isn't an explicit case where money was taken from the church treasury for the sake of non-saints and demanded that it'd be sinful to use the funds in such a way. We've observed that they used one container on His table, so we've “bound” the use of only one “cup.” (See my other piece on that matter, here: https://cadleonard.com/materials/article/tag/anti-ism) We've observed that the American family has “bombed” on rearing children and abused the “Bible class” hour in thinking that it's a legitimate substitute, thus blaming the church when our children turn out to be “unfaithful,” so we've disbanded Bible class and only have “worship assembly” now. We've observed that there wasn't a single paid preacher that resided at a congregation, so we've argued for no longer paying a single preacher (and, of course, this has had its fair share of “abuse” also). Do you see where all of this heads?

What I'm about to say is NOT an argument; it is an observation . . . If we take this “hermeneutic” seriously, we're bound to destroy the church. It leads to “binding” everything and locking us into a view and approach towards God that is so “out of touch” with humanity that it becomes “unreal.” Viewing God in such a way leads us to “falling out of love” with Him rather than “into love” with Him. That's not a “liberal” observation! That's a fact! THIS particular “hermeneutic” professes an entirely different God than the one of the Bible; THIS God of THIS hermeneutic is certainly “dictatorial,” but even that doesn't do justice to what's really going on. THIS whole view is inconsistent within itself; it cannot be held consistently by any human being. Surely, this should alert us to the entire approach and send us “back to the drawing board”?! There's no “authority” for microphones, church pews, hinges on doors to our buildings, youth groups, game nights, extra-biblical material like workbooks or commentaries, etc., etc., etc. If we actually “buy into” this approach, we're bound up to inconsistency within ourselves and also creating catastrophe for the Lord's church – and neither of these are the product of “the text” itself; these are byproducts of human error. It is our assumed, presupposed view/approach that leads to THIS particular sort of problem. We NEED to rethink . . .

Our fear is this . . . By NOT coming to the text in a “legalistic” manner, we think that this completely erodes the need and call for “obedience.” But, Paul handles all of this in his tract to the Romans (cf. 4:1-25; 6:1-23). Approaching God by a “legalistic” method IS NOT THE SAME as approaching God by faithful obedience; you'll have noticed that God (in Paul) treats “law,” “flesh” and “works” as VILLAINS – they are NOT His friend! – in Romans 4?! (See 4:1-5 especially; here's what Paul EXPLICITLY says: “the worker is not justified!” Whatever he means by that, he's AGAINST “works”!) When Paul says “law” or “works,” he is speaking of an entire SYSTEM of justification (as set over against “faith” or “grace” another SYSTEM of justification). The one system (“works” or “law”) is a system of “being legal enough to earn God's pardon” whereas the other (“grace” or “faith”) is a system of “being faithful and obedient to claim Jesus as a moral substitute for God's pardon,” since He (Jesus) was the only perfect One in relation to morality (which is THE DEMAND OF “LAW” [ANY LAW, that is, not only the Old Law]). So, for Paul, the WAY that we “approach God” matters! A “legal” method is completely out of the question, since we've all “been” (in the past) illegal and cannot repair our former illegality . . . What's done is done; we've broken the law, so we should have been indicted, right?! LAW NEVER JUSTIFIES! (This is truly all over Romans and Galatians! LAW NEVER JUSTIFIES!)

Why am I telling you all of this? Well, if “LAW” does not “justify,” then we need to try to stop being “legal enough” for God . . . Bless me, but WE CANNOT DO THAT! WE WILL NEVER BE “LEGAL ENOUGH” FOR GOD!!!!!! (This is no different from one's thinking that he is “good enough” for God! Great day! Have we “arrived” [see 1 Cor. 4:8 and Paul's scathing sarcasm]?! Have we reached “God status” and are no longer in need of refinement? Are we morally perfect, now?! Did our conversion to Christ and our baptism make us perfect?!) But, let's make this observation . . .

Paul regards “law” or “works” as radically different from “faithful obedience”! You'll have noticed that he explicitly says this . . .

WORKS DO NOT JUSTIFY (Rom. 4:4,5)

OBEDIENCE DOES JUSTIFY (Rom. 6:16-18)

The “works” that he has in view in Romans 4 are NOT “works” under the Old Law. Faithful obedience was as necessary then as it is now, don't you think?! And, why would those “works” be treated as villainous by Paul anyway? Weren't they from God?! And, how would Romans 4:14 fit with that business? (Doesn't 4:14 say that the “those of the law” cannot be “heirs” since such would make faith void and the promise nullified?! Let that sink in! If “law” and “works” are OT things, then we've sold Abraham, Moses and the rest of the “faithful worthies” of the OT to “not being heirs”!) Look, “law” and “works” in Romans 4 HAS to mean something other than OT “works” or “law” – IT IS A SYSTEM! (Of course, this IS difficult; more than one hasn't called Paul's writings “difficult” because they're easy to “get” – why, even an inspired apostle picked up on the difficulty [cf. 2 Pet. 3:15,16].) AGAIN, “LAW” or “WORKS” is a SYSTEM OF JUSTIFICATION . . . and it is one that PAUL OPPOSES. It is a SYSTEM OF EARNING, MERIT, PERFORMANCE; Paul knows that such a view WILL NEVER JUSTIFY MAN. It cannot be done successfully. Only one could “earn” – if we should even word it that way – “justification” by His own law-keeping/merit . . . and He died on a cross and can be claimed as our MORAL SUBSTITUTE. This very notion is the HEART of Christianity and therefore MUST “rule out” any “legalistic” approach to God. WE NEED A SUBSTITUTE, THEREFORE “LEGALISM” IS OUT! (See Romans 11:6.) Paul favors “justification” which involves faithful obedience, but “faithful obedience” is NOT what he means when he says “law” or “works” in Romans 4.

How is all of this important for our discussion? Some have decided to approach God in the same way that think that He has granted “justification.” Some approach God as a “judge” – obviously, a “legal judge,” right?! – but in the courtroom, when we're the defendant, we don't want a “judge,” we want a FATHER to interpret our crimes! We want THE LOVING FATHER on our side! It's true that He is both THE HOLY FATHER and THE HOLY JUDGE! But, if we can't sort out the difference between a “father” and a “judge,” then we need to spend more time at home and in the courtroom. Here's what I mean to say . . . and pardon the “double negative” . . . God is never not the Holy Father! God is ALWAYS the Holy Father! When we make mistakes, He is “on our side” (Exo. 34:6,7; 2 Pet. 3:9; etc. passim).

If we always view God as “the judge” (which He is) but always view Him at the expense of His being the Holy Father, we will continue to approach Him as a “judge” and never as our Holy Father. THIS IS A PROBLEM.

We need fathers that understand our mistakes, that protect us, that help us remedy our mistakes, that help us do better, that feel our pain, that take obedience seriously, that . . . AND GOD IS ALL OF THAT! He was a boy, once, too (Heb. 4:15). He knows what it is like to be human (in the Lord Jesus Christ). He knows that we can't keep “law” perfectly (all over Romans and common sense and experience). He knows how to help us, through “law,” remedy our mistakes. He does feel our pain in our inability to be perfect. ALL OF THIS SUGGESTS A PERSONAL GOD.

Some of us have been taught a lousy view of God and thus a lousy view of how to approach Him. So, we “walk on eggshells,” worry about “ticking Him off” and think that He's integrally “angry.” Look, whatever else we make of God, He is NOT integrally “wrathful.” “WRATH” is a RESPONSE; it is nothing like His “LOVE,” which is integral to His character. We've developed a view of a God that is foaming at the mouth, snapping at human beings with thick fangs, only being held back by a thin leash. AND, then, with THAT GOD in mind, we're concerned to be “legal” to make sure that we don't catch the full blast of His anger?!

Our hermeneutic and our view of God are all “wrapped up” together! Where did this business start? How did some of us ever come to see God and our intertwined hermeneutic in such a way? IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY HUMAN FRAILITY AND ABUSE! More than one psychologist, rightly, has observed that our first image of God is brought about by our view of our fathers. In other words, if we had a “hard” and “wrathful” father – something that Paul warns against in a way (Eph. 6:1-4) – it is no shock that some have come to see God in the same kind of way. They see THE HOLY FATHER as they've come to see their physical father . . . This has naturally led to two responses: 1) reject “church” altogether because of how abhorrent it is or 2) persist in a view of a hard, wrathful God that demands our moral and legal perfection and snaps whenever we make mistakes. (Only a quite level-headed fellow will find balance and find the third alternative, which is to remain faithful to God and develop a view of God that differs radically from the physical father.)

Here's what I'm trying to persuade you on . . .

We've transformed the text into “legal codes” in many places because we've been conditioned to read the text as such. We've been taught to read the text this way by 1) our physical fathers, 2) our subsequent view of God and 3) long-standing habit of reading – or, sadly, in many cases, not reading – the text. (How many of us have actually poured time, energy and money into developing “the text”? Or, are we simply accepting traditional methods that were passed down from the older generations? So, we reject multiple containers, Bible classes, benevolence to non-saints, etc.?) I'm convinced that we'd never get these kinds of views out of the text. I'm convinced that this whole approach stems from other places than it (as listed). I'm convinced that we need to revert to the text and spend more time in it, realizing that God will provide our “hermeneutic” for us rather than a human-produced and human-arranged “CENI” hermeneutic.

What I believe in is something more difficult yet more simple . . . I believe in a THEOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC. In other words, I think it to be a severe error to run the Bible through the filter of “CENI.” I think that THE ENTIRE BIBLE is “the” hermeneutic. We cannot start hacking parts of the Bible off from itself (INCLUDING THE OLD TESTAMENT). The entire collection must be taken seriously. It IS self-interpreting, if we'll only pour the time, energy and money into it.

We, in the West, love lists and bullet points. We've come to despise reading and researching. We want a Bible translation that reads like the newspaper and is easy to understand. Sorry, that's not how everything works. (Somebody said that the richest treasures are the ones that you've got to dig the deepest for.) So, we've come to favor things like “CENI” because it is easy to remember and easy to run every Bible passage through . . . And, we walk away feeling like we've “mastered” the Bible with such a method. THIS SEVERELY UNDERCUTS GOD.

God hasn't given us a cute, little method that helps us, all of a sudden, grasp the text and have full enlightenment. He gave us ALL OF THE ORACLES for the purpose (2 Pet. 1:3). We must come to use the entire text and interpret the rest of the text(s) in light of the wider/broader collection.

When we reduce “Christianity” to cups on the Lord's table, benevolence to non-saints or eating in a church building, we are really missing the HEART of Christianity. We've CREATED LAWS that God never even commented on – He's purely silent on such; we've MAJORED IN MINORS and neglected to pay the appropriate attention to what really needs work – are we really arguing for non-benevolence instead of benevolence?! And, that's Christianity (see Acts 20:35)?! And, we've APPROACHED GOD POORLY.

Let me now try to handle the two specific questions of eating in the building and restriction of church funds . . .

First, regarding the “eating in the building,” we're going to have to frame an argument for why such is not tolerable. One might object that this sounds an awful lot like, “Everything is allowed unless stated otherwise,” but this really needs some thought (as pointed out above). Where did the “don't eat in the building” folks get “authority” for having a church building in the first place? And/or, do they have a water fountain in the building? If so, where is the distinction drawn? Further, in the New Testament, we have “church homes” all over; see the end of nearly any of Paul's epistles. Were they allowed to eat in homes?

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 makes it clear that they were having “love feasts” in the same environment in which they were gathering for worship. 1 Corinthians 11:22's remark is NOT against having food in the area in which worship was taking place; it is against the “private dining” and abuse of the “love feast” that was taking place. See, the Corinthians were “dividing” over nearly everything (favorite preachers; intellect/job/status/power/etc.; knowledge over meats-offered-to-idols). And, then, at their “love feasts” – their fellowship meals – they were dividing into their little cliques and snubbing some; why they were being so selfish that they were bringing their own private meal to a fellowship meal, inviting only their elitist snob friends to the table to dine with them while the less-fortunate were left hungry and thirsty as they were having a “buffet” for their own crowd, starting earlier than everyone else and not even giving them a chance to get food/drink. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS BETRAYS CHRIST'S WAY, which is why Paul “ropes in” THE SUPPER . . . He reminded them about how Jesus was SACRIFICIAL, prayed for UNITY and GAVE FOR ALL (in spite of being betrayed). Now, that's a pattern for Corinth to follow! What if they, instead of having their “private dining” at the fellowship meal, saved such a dinner for their own homes, where such a “clique” would not be so divisive, offensive and out-of-place. (That's the meaning of vs. 22!) What if Corinth decided to sacrifice, promote unity among all and give even when snubbed – would that pattern promote the appropriate behavior of the churches of Christ?!

11:33,34 is the solution to the problem – from it, we get an idea what the problem was – it WAS NOT that they had food in the worship area . . . If I told you that the solution to a problem was a band aid, you'd not get the idea that the problem was that the engine in my car. If I told you that the solution to my problem was to put gas in my car, you'd not get the idea that my problem was a kidney stone. YOU CAN DEDUCE THE PROBLEM BASED ON THE SOLUTION. Read 11:33,34 and see what Paul's SOLUTION is . . . He gives TWO OPTIONS: 1) wait to eat the “love feast” or 2) eat at home before coming to assembly. (The ONLY reason that Paul brings in the Lord's Supper is to demonstrate that their behavior in the common meal, the love feast, betrayed the very pattern of Christianity that was set out by Christ. HE IS NOT SAYING THAT THE SUPPER AND THE LOVE FEAST ARE THE SAME; THEY ARE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT. But, he brings in THE SUPPER to demonstrate the kind of selfless, sacrificial, unifying behavior that should have also been present in their feasting.) In light of that, I wonder (sarcasm, here) why Paul didn't say, “YOU NEED TO SEPARATE THE WORSHIP AREA FROM THE COMMON MEAL.” That is NEVER said! That's NOT the solution that Paul gives! Those that read the text to say that the PROBLEM was a common meal in the worship atmosphere are missing the point entirely. Paul's solution doesn't come close to treating that problem; it would make Paul seem senseless in 11:33 – why “wait” to eat the meal?! How would THAT be a solution if the problem were having common food in the worship area?! (The problem is about DIVISION/UNITY, not food . . . and, to read the problem as being about the food [merely] seriously undercuts the subtext/thrust of the unit. IT SPEAKS ABOUT SOMETHING MORE THAN FOOD!)

It might not be worth pointing out but it also might be . . . The “church” is the people (1 Cor. 12:27); it is certainly not the building. And, so, the building – quite like the homes of the New Testament saints – is nothing special. God hasn't made our church buildings “sacred.” These are simple buildings. Eating “in the church” is foreign to New Testament rhetoric. One brother was astounded at the fact that they were consistently having fellowship meals in the basement of the church building, saw their refrigerator and oven there, ran to a preacher that he thought shared his view and exclaimed, “They've got a refrigerator and oven in the church!” to which the preacher, wittily, replied, “Great day! Who baptized them?!”

Second, on the use of church funds, the argument (again) is that there is “no authority” for giving to non-saints from the church treasury. Again, to say that there is “no authority” makes it sound like it is a violation to perform such. I'm convinced that the New Testament is simply unconcerned with a matter. Some have seen churches pour money into entertainment and none into “gospel” things. So, obviously, again, we have an “abuse,” but an abuse doesn't “rule out” the use of the money altogether.

We can continue to debate the meaning of Galatians 6:10 (and the other few passages), but I'd simply question our approach to God, again. Does God want us to be “stingy” with the money? Is THAT the God that we serve? And, what kind of sense does it make for us to be able to give to non-saints out of our own pockets but not once our $100 bill hits the contribution plate?! Aren't we (the people) the “church” in the first place?! What kind of sense does it make for “the church” to be able to give to non-saints (personally) but not give to saints (from the collection)?! Where does this line get drawn and how is it crossed? Who drew the line in the first place? (Again, I think that our approach is coming from elsewhere on all of this.)

I've got a few buddies that lean towards this view on the collection and the use of funds. Let me see if I can't offer a little more on our approach and then tie all of this up . . .

We need to rethink our “no authority” equals “therefore, it is excluded” view. Just because we don't find a command-example-necessary inference on a thing DOES NOT MEAN that it is excluded. We've heard this business that “silence” equals “forbidden” for far too long, now . . . and that's just flatly wrong. Look, DIRECT POSITIVE COMMANDS CANNOT EXCLUDE/FORBID; by nature, they can only comment “positively” (not negatively) on things . . . John 3:16's call to “believe” DOES NOT EXCLUDE/FORBID Acts 2:38's call to be baptized. (Isn't that right?! Isn't that the way that we've argued with our denominational buddies?! They are contrary statements, but they are not contradictory and countermanding.) God's telling Moses to “speak” to the rock (Num. 20) did not “forbid” or “exclude” his hitting the rock; it ONLY AUTHORIZED SPEAKING. (So, we do need to be careful to “have authority” in practicing things religiously – but that needs definition.) The view that says that there is “no authority” for “eating in the building” or “giving to non-saints from the collection” understands “authority” to equal “command-example-necessary inference” but I'm saying that we need to question seriously whether or not that is exhaustive or even consistent? Are those espousing this view consistent with it? I think not. (Some things are simply “incidental” and we need to follow the entire text as a whole collection to see the things that God has called our attention to. Are these the things that God is concerned with? I don't want to abuse Matthew 23:23 – I'm aware that the “little things” matter, too, if they matter to God – but isn't this precisely Jesus' point to the Pharisees?! They've transformed “religion” and “approaching God” into matters that they find “major” while failing to see the entire approach on how to come to God appropriately!!! What if we “transposed” the text into our own key? What if we made application of Matthew 23:23 in an unbiased way? Would God say, “Shame on you for not being benevolent to non-saints” – a certain violation of the deeper ethic of the Holy Text and what it is trying to promote within us, I sure – and “Shame on you for spending so much time about arguing about eating a church building.” We're badly missing the point when we make these things the CORE of the GOSPEL.)

Finally, I want to express my appreciation for Deaver and Warren in a number of ways. They've called our attention to the need to take God seriously and to be obedient in the best ways. (Even some of those that are of an “anti” persuasion – if they wear that term – I mean NOTHING DERAGATORY by it – have good intentions and are trying not to play “fast and loose” with God's law, an obvious intention for good and serve to remind us of the need to be obedient and submissive to God.) We don't want to treat God as a “cheap God” that can be satisfied with our abusive, human ways. We don't want to seek self-justification for our wicked ways and mock God. We don't want to abuse “grace.” BUT, we certainly don't want to buy into a bad approach that fails to treat God appropriately and His system of justification appropriately. Here, I think Deaver and Warren come up short in that their “CENI” hermeneutic isn't exactly consistent, comes off as arbitrary in a number of ways and fails to account for several things. (It also transforms the gospel into a bulleted list that might be helpful but does not serve as an exhaustive treatment of the wider problem.) Instead, I might recommend John Mark Hicks' “Searching for the Pattern,” which I have found to be most helpful in a number of ways. (I usually diverge from Hicks on most things, so I don't usually recommend his material; I think he is severely misguided on much; but, in this book, I think he's got it right. It's helpful if you'll invest the time, energy and money in it.)

In contradistinction to Deaver and Warren, I think that we need to think of a “good, better, best” question rather than a “right” or “wrong” question. Incidentally, THIS QUESTION handles all of the “abuses” of church buildings and church funds (and other things [like abuses of youth groups, Bible classes, multiple containers on the table, etc.]). Some questions, like whether or not we can eat in the building or whether or not we can give to non-saints from the collection, should be handled with, “What is the 'worst,' 'bad,' 'good,' 'better' and 'best' solution?” Instead of immediately jumping to the “right” or “wrong” question, we ought to recognize that some things are inherently neutral and don't need to be made “moral” issues?

The individual might have a good heart by tapping his foot along with the song to keep the rhythm/beat, but to say that it has “no authority,” so to argue that that is not an issue and therefore “instrumental music” should be allowed also in order to be consistent is simply misguided. WE DO NOT NEED TO ASK IF THE INDIVIDUAL'S TAPPING HIS FOOT IS “RIGHT” OR “WRONG”! We only need to ask, with wisdom, what is “good,” “better” or “best”! If the fellow's tapping his foot could lead an individual to try to implement “instrumental music,” well, then, I think the elders/men/preacher need to talk to the fellow and say, “We're not saying it is wrong. We're asking you to exercise good, wise judgment for a 'best case scenario'.” TO JUMP TO “NO AUTHORITY” ON THE TAPPING OF THE FOOT IS A SEVERE LEAP INDEED. Enter “the heart” . . .

Much of this is regulated by THE HEART. The “good heart” will see the need for wisdom but may still tap his foot or whistle church tunes. It's those with misguided hearts that use this kind of approach to try to justify DANGEROUS – and I'm being generous by not using the word “sinful” instead, you'll see – innovations. It is those with “bad hearts” that are seeking to implement INNOVATIONS into worship. Do we really need a text to come out and forbid major innovations in church? Similarly, do we need a text to “authorize” our use of power point, microphones, church buildings, multiple cups, etc., etc., etc?! To make this entire discussion one about “authority” doesn't exactly capture the essence of the debate . . . We need to discuss HEARTS. Good hearts will seek wisdom (and not make EVERY – though must make some – issue a “right” or “wrong”) and bad hearts will seek to innovate and shift and make changes all for improper reasons/motives.

GOD HELP US HAVE LEADERS WITH THE WISDOM TO DISCERN, USING YOUR TEXT AS A GUIDE!

Let's tie all of this up . . .

First, we need to see God as an integrally loving, holy Father. He is always the Loving, Holy Father. Seeing Him as a different character leads us to approach Him poorly.

Second, we need to approach God as an integrally Loving, Holy Father. He is not integrally wrathful, foaming at the mouth and looking to blast those of us that put a single toe out of line. (See 1 John 1 especially; His wrath exists ONLY because of that which generated the wrath in the first place; that is, it is an anti-God/love/redemptive agenda that generates God's response of wrath . . . THUS, catch this: HIS WRATH IS ALWAYS AN EXPRESSION OF HIS LOVE. When God is wrathful, it is because He loves and someone/thing seeks to undermine His love; when God is “angry,” it is always a deeper reflex of His integrally LOVING character and NEVER something other than that. HE ALWAYS LOVES; WRATH IS A MOMENTARY RESPONSE DRIVEN BY HIS LOVE.) Our approach to the Holy Father, then, needs to be like that of a child . . . We will make mistakes (sometimes objectively “wrong” and at other times just misguided judgments “not the best case scenario”), and God is always to be understood as the loving, understanding God that seeks to help us remedy our problems and redeem our souls.

Third, approaching God with a boxy, sterile, wooden, flat approach not only misses the personal element about our God, but it also makes us “walk on eggshells” and lose touch with how the text was designed to function. (This simply DOES NOT suggest that there are no rules or that the rules are flexible at our whims.) I'm suggesting that God has a “law” – which we, incidentally, cannot keep perfectly (see Romans) – so the text and God, both, are present to help us ALWAYS (even after conversion) keep transforming/growing into His image (thus, Romans 6's call for believers to keep growing and not return to “sin” as Lord).

Fourth, approaching God with such an overarching view/approach/hermeneutic necessarily leads to making laws that God has never concerned Himself or humanity with. We start reading the text as a lawbook, but it simply isn't that as a whole. “Law” is not the genre of the literature of the Bible (though it contains such in places). We need to STOP READING historical, poetic, geographical notes – and all of the other non-law texts – as if “legislation” is embedded within all of them or as if they are all “filtered” through “legislation” as an approach. (To speak of the entire Bible as “God's law” is NOT misguided; it simply needs appropriate definition . . . and yes, it is our “law” or “standard,” but that doesn't translate over to us understanding the whole book as a “legal code” in a very vile and oppressive way. We need to understand better, here . . .)

Fifth, the specific issues of “anti-ism” – again, nothing deragatory, here – directly stem from the “CENI” approach. The view is trying to be “more consistent” than Warren and Deaver. But, the whole approach is flawed, not exhaustive and not drawn from the text itself. To speak of the need for “Bible authority” is a good thing, but the “CENI” approach understands “how one derives biblical authority” in a very scientific, wooden, flat, sterile manner, which is quite different from a THEOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC, that takes much more than “command-example-necessary inference” into account. (There ARE – yes, there are! – things that are simply “neutral,” so, microphones, church buildings, etc. [do we put “giving from church funds,” “using multiple containers,” “eating in the church building” here? – I think we should!] are completely neutral. They are “not 'authorized'” in some explicit manner, but THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD READ THE TEXT AS IF THEY ARE THEREFORE EXCLUDED! (THIS IS NOT HOW THE TEXT WAS MEANT TO FUNCTION.)

Maybe, this helps in some way . . .

God help us be good students . . .

* God enabling, I'll do a "book(let)" on "hermeneutics" by the time I'm dead.