CENI stands for Command, Example, and Necessary Inference. The conservative churches of Christ claim to require a command, example, or necessary inference in the Bible for everything they do. They teach CENI as the only acceptable hermeneutic.
Doy Moyer argues in his book Mind Your King and in various sermons that CENI is not a hermeneutic system. Rather, it simply describes the communication process. Moyer argues that the communicator tells, shows, or implies. Tell, Show, Imply (TSI) is Moyer's restatement of CENI from the communicator's point of view. The receptor perceives a command, example, or makes an inference. So, CENI or TSI only reveals the information, the raw data which must be interpreted and applied. Interpretation and application are not addressed with CENI or TSI. Since hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, CENI cannot be a hermeneutic system.
I mostly agree with brother Moyer's sagacious observation. I think there are more nonverbal cues involved, even in written communication. Also, the relationship between the communicator and the receptor add a lot of nuance that can't really be captured with TSI. However, I agree that generally, when someone criticizes or teaches CENI as a hermeneutic system, they are conflating the verbal communication process with the science of interpreting what has been communicated. Stated another way, CENI is neither a good nor a bad hermeneutic system because it isn't a hermeneutic system.
Since this is true, what then about hermeneutics in the conservative churches of Christ? When CENI is claimed as a hermeneutic, that ultimately becomes another way of saying, "We just do what the Bible says." I've argued in a series of posts that nobody does "just what the Bible says." Everyone who claims that the Bible is authoritative interprets and applies the Bible. We must make a distinction between what the Bible actually says and our own interpretations of the Bible. What the Bible actually says is the CENI, the raw data. Our interpretation is the result of applying our hermeneutic system to the CENI. Everyone interprets the Bible. Every. One.
What is missing in conservative churches of Christ is a well-defined hermeneutic. Calling CENI a hermeneutic is not good enough. What is needed is a consistent set of principles that can guide one in the interpretation and application of the Bible. This is lacking in those who claim CENI as their hermeneutic.
I'm not arguing that CENI is invalid. I'm arguing that CENI is NOT a hermeneutic. Sure, you can find examples of folks following CENI in the New Testament. Doy Moyer argues (Mind Your King, p34-37) that it's CENI that instructs Peter in Acts 10. I've heard it argued elsewhere that it's CENI that comes up with the letter to the church at Antioch in Acts 15. I don't disagree that you'll find examples of CENI in the New Testament. But it is not true that EVERY time there is communication from God that the recipient of the communication only adhered to the CENI and nothing more. There are several examples where interpreters went beyond CENI to make an application of Scripture or other commands from God. (1 Cor. 9:9-10; Gal. 3:16, 4:24-31, et al. This could be multiplied many times over where NT authors make an application that takes many liberties with the text and goes well beyond what is explicitly stated or necessarily implied in the Hebrew Scripture.)
Interpreting the Bible is hard work. Volumes upon volumes have been written about how to interpret Scripture, both at the scholarly and popular level. Some good popular works on this topic are How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart) and Scripture and the Authority of God (N.T. Wright). Since Scripture is living and powerful (Heb. 4:12) and it guides a living body (the church) through a living and changing creation, it makes sense that the methods for interpreting it will change over time. It's dangerous hubris to say or imply or act as if "We've figured out the Bible and we just do what it says."
In my resistance to CENI as a hermeneutic over the years, I've heard and read several attacks of a straw man. Those defending CENI suggest that there are some who wish to do away with "examples" and "necessary inferences" as sources for authority and only stick with commands. That's not my point at all. Maybe some have suggested this, but most objections to CENI do not suggest that we follow "commands only". My point is that there are commands, examples, and necessary inferences in the Bible that do not apply to 21st century Christians. Every 21st century Christian lives by this reality to some degree or another. We need to frankly admit this, that we violate direct commandments in the New Testament, and get busy working out WHY we do this. What I've found is that there is a variety of reasons that words in ancient texts don't apply today and there is a lot of room for diversity of interpretation and application. How closely someone's interpretation resembles yours is not a reliable gauge for his sincerity or respect for the Bible's authority.
In summary, CENI as a hermeneutic is just another way of saying, "We just do what the Bible says." This statement is patently and demonstrably false for everyone who claims it. Nobody just does what the Bible says. Everyone interprets the Bible to make application to their setting and situation. Many deny that they interpret the Bible and claim to "just do what the Bible says", but this is excessive arrogance at worst and dangerous ignorance at best. Don't obstinately refuse to admit that you interpret the Bible. Interpretation, per se, is not a bad thing. Sure, there are bad interpretations. Ironically, many bad interpretations grow out of denying interpretation.
Good interpretation is hard work. It requires depending on and respecting modern scholarship. It requires community. It must above all be Christ centered and love biased.
