CENI

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.

When Scripture Has Rocks

One of my favorite things to do is to run on the trails in DeSoto State Park. One trail parallels the Little River, which is a fast flowing river that flows mostly south and mostly atop Lookout Mountain and eventually forges a canyon to the south of the state park. The water rushes along and you can hear it from quite some distance away. Occasionally, as I'm looking at the river, I'll see a large rock, maybe several large rocks just sticking up above the water. The water hits the rock, turns white, makes noise, and flows around the rock, continuing southward.

These rocks add beauty to the river. These rocks make the water rough. These rocks make the river more difficult to navigate. These rocks amplify the voice of the river and sometimes make the flow of the river even more obvious. Ignore these rocks and you'll miss the river's voice. You'll miss the river's beauty. And if you're in the water, ignore these rocks to your own peril. To attempt to ignore them is both futile and dangerous. However, to pick up and go the complete opposite direction because a rock stands against the flow of the river is even more futile and dangerous.

Sometimes we have Bible verses like those big rocks.

What I mean is this. The overall sweep of Scripture is flowing very strongly in one direction, but there are verses that jut out, like big rocks on a fast river. These verses seem to oppose the flow of the "river". When we see those, we have to choose. Will we turn and go against the overall flow of Scripture? Will we attempt to ignore them? Or will we admire the beauty and roughness and navigate around them listening for God's voice in the noise caused by these verses that seem to oppose the flow of Scripture?

Examples of passages that are like these rocks...

Matthew 7:13-14 is a passage that I've wrestled with for some time. There is an overall flow of Scripture, especially in prophecy, toward an earth filled with people who turn to God and who know God. There are innumerable hosts in heaven in Revelation (Rev. 7:9-12; 15:4). There are verses like Habakkuk 2:14; Isaiah 11:9; Ps. 22:27 and Ps. 98:1-3. Does this one passage near the end of the sermon on the mount suddenly reverse all of those? (That's not impossible because the sermon on the mount begins with a set of reversals, for sure.) Or is there another way to understand this verse that honors both this verse and the overall flow of Scripture?

Other examples include the role of women. You have Miriam, Deborah, Anna, the women proclaiming the empty tomb to men, Phoebe, Junia, Philip's daughters, Gal. 3:28, etc. Standing against those you have 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34. What do we make of that? How do we deal with those rocks? How do we decide which verses are the "flow" and which are the "rocks" in my metaphor?

There is an overall flow of a picture of God as merciful, patient, kind, loving. In fact, that is perhaps the major theme of all of the Bible. There are passages like Deut 5:10 and Deut 7:9 and Rom. 5:15 and Rom. 5:17 that show that God's mercy is orders of magnitude greater than His punishment. We are told that God is slow to anger. But then you have Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-3) and Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:7) and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10). Do we throw out the flow of Scripture toward a merciful and loving God of grace in favor a few "rocks" that on the surface appear to portray God as an angry cosmic despot? Or do we strive to see what else may be going on in those "rock" verses?

Let's take the more difficult road of wrestling with passages that cause us tension. Let's not settle for pat answers. Let's use the tools available to us, including modern scholarship which can help us understand customs and language and culture and audience and author of the books in the Bible. Let's strive to honor all of Scripture, even the parts we don't like or that present problems to our cherished and long-held beliefs. Let's even consider the possibility that we may not be able to reconcile all of these verses and we're just left to honor the beauty of the different perspectives in Scripture. Let's not be satisfied to read Scripture the way we always have. Let's read Scripture as it has been given to us by God (a beautiful story written from different times and perspectives) instead of turning it into what we may want it to be (a uniform, simple, point by point instruction manual).

The Bible Says It: Part 3

This is the third in a set of posts pointing out that nobody "just does what the Bible says". We all have times where we say, "The Bible says ..., but that doesn't mean ..." My point in these posts is NOT that we should do "just what the Bible says." My point is NOT that we should reject the Bible. My point is that we should stop pretending to do "just what the Bible says." No one "just does what the Bible says", even if he's thoroughly convinced that he does. I don't do that, and I now realize that I didn't do that even when I was thoroughly convinced that I did.

If you want to catch up, you can read the first post and then the second post. Or you can find all the posts with the tag "but that doesn't mean".

In this post I plan to point out more examples where people who claim to follow the Bible read it and then say, "But that doesn't mean". This installment will list some areas of practical application, both collective and individual. I'll start with one that is more or less unique to my heritage, the non-institutional churches of Christ.

1. The Bible says (James 1:27) that pure and undefiled religion is to visit orphans and widows. But that doesn't mean that the church is authorized to help widows and orphans. Some argue that the church cannot do this good deed collectively; rather this good deed is reserved exclusively for individuals. The arguments against the church helping orphans and widows are very complex and involved and only a very, very few people have ever understood and even fewer have ever agreed with them. In order to forbid a church from helping orphans, you have to understand specific and generic authority in a certain subjective way. I find it odd that "specific and generic authority" are never mentioned in the Bible yet these subjective principles restrict this very clear statement in the Bible. Then there are these very subjective rules about what an individual may do versus what a church may do, and yet these rules don't apply to singing (and other things) for some reason. It's a very complex, nearly nonsensical set of mental gymnastics that one has to go through to teach that a church collectively helping widows and orphans is a damnable sin. I've described this practice as the non-institutional church of Christ version of Corban (Mark 7:9-13), and I don't think that's a big stretch. "Helping widows and orphans is an individual responsibility," they say. When it comes time to actually help widows and orphans, the individual funds are often already allocated for the weekly contribution to the church, which is for saving souls (and paving parking lots and climate controlling an oversized building which is only used 4 hours per week and replacing carpet etc., expedient things). And after all, saving souls, some would argue, is far more important than helping widows and orphans. This sounds a LOT like Corban in Mark 7:9-13. James 1:27 is a very simple, straightforward description of religion. But it doesn't mean what it simply says.
2. Jesus said in Matt. 9:15 that His disciples would fast. But that doesn't mean that Christians must fast. I don't really understand why this verse and several more like it about fasting are completely ignored by many Christians claiming to "just do what the Bible says". I know a lot of Christians who have made a lot more out of a lot less (see Acts 20:7). Why not obey God in this simple yet effective spiritual discipline? Both churches and individuals generally ignore fasting. It's almost never practiced collectively outside of the churches that observe Lent. When I observed Lent and told about it, I received some harsh criticism for following the commandments of men. Actually, I was taking an opportunity to join other Christians in a fast; something Jesus seemed to expect His disciples to do. Which of God's commandments can we ignore while claiming to do "just what the Bible says"? Just the ones we agree to ignore, I suppose. The Bible says (multiple times) that Jesus' disciples will fast. But that doesn't mean that Christians must fast.
3. James 2:2-4 says we should not show partiality to those in the assembly who dress in fine clothes... but that doesn't mean you don't have to dress up for church. I've seen this discussed on Facebook recently, and I've heard it most all of my life. This passage has the most to say about what people wear at an assembly, and the essence of this passage is, "If you show favoritism based on clothing, you have evil thoughts." In spite of what James says, there are still many churches that have unwritten dress codes. I've been turned down from public participation in a worship service because I didn't have on a tie. And I've heard private criticisms of others because they are not "dressed up enough". James says that these distinctions based on clothing indicate evil thoughts. The arguments for dressing up run the gamut of "meeting the President" to "appropriate for a wedding or funeral" to "priestly garments". They're complex, nuanced, cultural arguments to explain away a very simple Bible text.

There are many more examples. To close, I want to reiterate my main point here. We don't just do what the Bible says. You don't. I don't. At best, we do what we believe the Bible says. There's a big difference between what the Bible says and what someone believes the Bible means. When I think I actually do "just what the Bible says", then I am in grave danger of equating my interpretation with the very commands of God.

The Bible Says It: Part 2

Last week Zack Hunt posted an article at The American Jesus about bad theology. The article was prompted by the death of Jamie Coots from a snake bite. (If you didn't already know, Jamie Coots was featured on the reality show Snake Salvation on National Geographic Channel.) His death is tragic. I don't plan to criticize Jamie Coots' practices or pretend I'm superior to him in this post. Rather I plan to point out how that "the Bible says it; that settles it" doesn't work for anyone, snake handler or not.

Zack points out that this tragedy is a case where bad theology directly led to death. That's a true point. He goes on to point out that bad theology often leads to harm and death to others, not just those who subscribe to the bad theology. Another true point. A main point of the article is that nobody does just what the Bible says. This summary from the article is spot on and is the point I want to emphasize in this post.

So, never forget that the truth of the matter is you’re not simply doing what the Bible says to do.
You’re doing what you think the Bible says to do.
And that’s a really, really important difference.

This article reminded me that I wrote a post with a similar main point a while back and said I'd write more. As background for the rest of this post, I encourage you to read that post, titled The Bible Says It; That Settles It. I mentioned in that post that I had 30 or so examples of times that many Christians who say they "just do what the Bible says" really don't. Nobody just does what the Bible says. Nobody even just does what the New Testament says. 

We all have times where we say, "The Bible says ..., but that doesn't mean ..." 

So, here are four more examples of "but that doesn't mean". 

1. Since I began with a reference to Jamie Coots, I'll start with this exception that's invoked by most everyone who isn't a snake handling Pentecostal. The Bible says (Mark 16:17-18) that signs will accompany those who believe, including picking up serpents with their hands, drinking deadly poison without harm, speaking in tongues, and healing the sick. But that doesn't mean that believers can handle snakes, drink poison, speak in tongues, or heal the sick. I'm not arguing for these things. I agree with this exception. I think Jamie Coots is an example that this verse at least did not apply to him. I don't believe it applies to me, either. My point is this: You and I don't just do what the Bible says. (Neither did Jamie Coots; he had his exceptions, too.) An interesting thing about this passage is that in the churches I've been a part of, Mark 16:15-16 applies to everyone for all time (even though it's addressed only to the apostles), but Mark 16:17-18 does not (even though those signs are for believers, not just the apostles). The reasons given that verses 17 and 18 don't apply are complex and nuanced. You have to prove that miraculous powers could only be passed by laying on of apostles hands (impossible to prove). Then, you have to prove that all the apostles are dead and that there were only the original 12 plus Mathias and Paul but no more apostles (not an easy task as we'll see next). You have to prove that the only purpose miracles served was to "confirm the word". And finally, you have to prove that the canon is closed. In short, you need extra-biblical sources to build a complex case that the Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. And many make this complex argument while claiming the Bible is simple and we "just do what the Bible says." I'm not very familiar with snake handling Pentecostal theology, but it wouldn't surprise me if they more or less ignore verse 16 while building an identity based on verses 17 and 18. The truth is that we pick and choose from the Bible, often choosing some verses while disregarding others in the same immediate context. We all do. You do. I do. As long as a person refuses to admit this, a discussion about interpreting and applying the Bible is a futile waste of time.
2. The Bible says that Barnabas was an apostle (Acts 14:14), but that doesn't mean Barnabas was an apostle. Some say that there were no more apostles besides the original 12, Mathias, and Paul. Limiting the apostles to these "official apostles" is key to a few anti-charismatic arguments. Some insist that Barnabas was indeed NOT an apostle no matter what Acts 14:14 says. Neither was Titus (2 Cor. 8:23) nor Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25) nor Timothy nor Silas (1 Thes. 2:6). Even the mention Junia (Rom. 16:7) may get you burned at the stake. There is no way SHE was an apostle. Some insist that there were twelve plus Mathias and Paul and that is all. In these verses that call others apostles, "apostle" doesn't mean "apostle". The Bible calls those people apostles, but it doesn't mean they were apostles. Some deny that these people were apostles while claiming to "just believe what the Bible says." The arguments against these other apostles require some knowledge of Greek, something you'll only learn from a source external to the Bible. When can we admit that we don't "just follow the Bible"?
3. Another verse that non-charismatics make an exception for is this. The Bible says (1 Cor. 14:39) "do not forbid speaking in tongues" but that doesn't mean we can't forbid speaking in tongues in our assembly. Speaking in tongues is absolutely forbidden in every church where I've been a member based on a dubious interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8-13. This interpretation does grave injustice to the theme of the resurrection in Paul's writings. To dismiss 1 Cor. 14:39 based on that forced interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8-18, you have to prove that the canon was under consideration by Paul in 1 Cor 13. You have to prove that the canon is closed, which is impossible to do without extra-biblical sources. Then you run into the problem of when exactly the gifts ceased. Did they cease when there were no more people alive who had received gifts from the apostles (here we are faced with that messy apostle problem again) or was the Spirit involved in preserving and settling the canon? I hear the same people insisting that spiritual gifts ceased after the death of those on whom the apostles laid their hands also insisting that the Spirit guided the selection of the books to be included in the New Testament. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either the gifts stopped and men selected the canon or the gifts continued and allowed the Spirit to select the canon. Anyway, some indeed forbid speaking in tongues, flatly disobeying what 1 Cor. 14:39 says, all while claiming to "just do what the Bible says."
4. And finally for this post and finally on the anti-charismatic theme. (There probably are more on this theme, but these are all I plan to write about.) The Bible says in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't mean you'll actually receive any gift of the Holy Spirit. This verse is one that is cut in two by so many. The Christians I know who (rightly, I might add) emphasize the role of baptism quote the "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" more often than almost any other verse in the Bible, but they typically ignore, stutter, say "um, uh, um," about the "gift of the Holy Spirit" part. Unless the gift of the Holy Spirit is just salvation itself they typically have no idea what to do with this last part. According to their theology, if this "gift of the Holy Spirit" means that you'll have anything from the Holy Spirit in any way except for memorizing the Bible, you shouldn't expect it. But the repent and be baptized part of that verse is the centerpiece of soteriology, more often quoted than even John 3:16. On the other hand,  those who are more charismatic take the second part of this verse and lean on it, and sometimes equate a miraculous experience with salvation. These people practically ignore the "repent and be baptized" part. They may even substitute a "sinner's prayer" for baptism while overemphasizing the "gift of the Holy Spirit". Many go so  far as to say that if you haven't had a miraculous experience, then you haven't been saved. (I often wonder who gave them the authority to say who is and who isn't saved.) Not surprisingly, both sides claim to "just do what the Bible says." But neither side really does what the Bible says. Neither side really accepts a plain reading of just this one verse.

I want to be abundantly clear here. I don't subscribe to charismatic theology, especially not charismatic soteriology or liturgy. I'm not saying that the "but that doesn't mean" exceptions in this post are right or wrong. I'm saying that we all sometimes have to say, "But that doesn't mean." I have my own "but that doesn't mean" exceptions. I admit that. I don't "just do what the Bible says". Neither do you, no matter how convinced you are that you do. That's my point. Can we please stop saying that we "just do what the Bible says"? It's an arrogant claim. It leads us to say that anyone who doesn't do exactly what we do just doesn't care what the Bible says. I assure you that I care very deeply what the Bible says and it's insulting and rude for someone to say that I don't. Also, it would be insulting and rude for me to say that you don't care. This "we just do what the Bible says" is a dangerous manifestation of pride.

Several years ago I heard a sermon about fellowship. The preacher said that he was asked about where he draws the line of fellowship, and he said that he doesn't draw lines. He said God draws the lines and he just searches to find where God has drawn the lines. I vehemently disagree. He draws lines because he doesn't fellowship everyone. So, he draws lines where he thinks God has drawn them. We must get this difference. What you believe about the Bible is just that. It's what you believe about the Bible. Your lines are just that. They're your lines. They're not God's lines. My lines are just that; they're my lines. They're not God's lines. For me to claim that my lines are God's lines is dangerously proud.

It's a subtle step to go from "We say what God says," to "What we say, God says." While proudly claiming the first, "We say what God says," I'm afraid many have unconsciously made the step to the second, "What we say, God says." That subtle step makes a HUGE difference, and it can be avoided by understanding that there is a difference between what you think God says and what God actually says.

Don't confuse what you believe about the Bible with what the Bible actually says. They're different. For every single one of us, those two things are different things.

Before two people can have a productive discussion, both must admit that they're interpreting the Bible, not "just reading it". You lean on what others have taught you and so do I. You lean on what you already know, and so do I. You and I lean on the work of scholars, even if we don't think we do. (Who translated the Bible to your language if not scholars? If you can read the original language, who taught you if not scholars? If you lean on a lexicon, who wrote that lexicon if not scholars? Etc.) We come to a better understanding of God by community. I depend on others to help me understand better. I hope that I'm able to help others understand better. This community is a beautiful, God-ordained blessing. Let us never get to the point that we believe that we are the ones helping and not receiving help from others. Let us never think that we are the only source of truth and that we are God's only true mouthpiece.

And by the way, there are many more of these exceptions.

The Bible Says It; That Settles It

I sometimes hear "What I say doesn't matter; it's what the Bible says that matters." A close cousin to that is "I didn't say that; the Bible says that," or "I didn't say that; God did." And there are other ways of expressing this sentiment. "I don't interpret the Bible; I just read it." "You're not rejecting what I say; you're rejecting what God says." And so on.

Or one of my favorites... "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Or just "God said it. That settles it."

That's nice except when that doesn't settle it.

Sometimes the Bible says to do things that we don't do. At other times, we do things that the Bible doesn't say to do. Still at other times we do what the Bible says not to do.

So when someone says about his church, "We just do what the Bible says," what that may mean is that he believes that his church has figured out what the Bible really means and if you were humble, honest, and informed enough, you would agree with them.

The problem with claiming to do just what the Bible says, no more and no less, is that it's only a matter of time before you're forced into saying... "The Bible says... But that doesn't mean..."

Let me illustrate what I mean with some examples of things that the Bible says that directly contradict the beliefs and practices of the churches that I have been affiliated with for most of the past 20 years (the non-institutional churches of Christ). I don't think I'm pulling any tricks with these examples. They're not prophecies or figurative or obviously limited. These are passages where the context supports the obvious reading. They are texts that require substantial explanation to explain the difference between the obvious reading of the passage and what many Christians teach and practice.

1. The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding in John 2:7-10. But that doesn't mean they drank wine at that wedding.

Now, I know some of the explanations for this. I've read them, studied them, and even taught them. They involve a detailed description of why "wine" means "grape juice" and explaining why the best "wine" really isn't wine at all. You have to dig up Old Testament passages, lean on some atonement theology, and know something about the meaning of Greek words and the fermentation process to even make a stab at explaining why this doesn't mean they drank wine as part of this celebration. My point isn't to argue whether or not drinking wine is right or wrong. My point is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" doesn't really work here for people who oppose drinking alcohol. The obvious reading of this story indicates that they drank alcoholic wine at that wedding with Jesus' approval. Any other reading requires quite a bit of explanation and even some extra-biblical sources. To prohibit alcohol, you have to say, "The Bible says that Jesus served wine at a wedding, but that doesn't mean that Jesus served wine at a wedding."

Hang in there with me. I can think of more than 30 more of these examples. I'll stop at five examples in this post. Again, I'm not arguing either way on any of these examples. I'm simply making the point that despite claims to the contrary, no one just "does and teaches what the Bible says." No one truly "speaks where the Bible speaks and remains silent where the Bible is silent." No one always and only follows "commands, examples, and necessary inferences" (CENI).

2. John 13:14 says "wash one another's feet." But that doesn't mean we should "wash one another's feet". In fact if you do wash one another's feet as part of a worship service, you've added to the commandments of God because there are only five acts of worship. If you teach others to wash feet, you're a false teacher.
3. 1 Timothy 2:8 says "men should pray with hands uplifted." But that doesn't mean to ever lift your hands when you pray. In fact, if you do lift your hands, you will likely be asked not to do that any more. So, in addition to not following this simple, clear encouragement to pray with uplifted hands, many forbid following this verse.
4. For the fourth example, I'd like to give an example of a prohibition that many ignore. The Bible says to abstain from blood and from things strangled (Acts 15:20, 29). But that doesn't mean that medium rare steaks are prohibited or that I need to buy my meat from a Kosher butcher that ensures no strangulation. I know only a very few Christians who abstain from rare steaks for this reason. I don't know any who take any effort to ensure that their meat was slaughtered in a way that guarantees no strangulation.
5. The final example for this post... The Bible says as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup (1 Cor. 11:26). But that doesn't mean "as often as". It means "when you do this on Sunday each and every week," because any other day or frequency is sinful. Never mind that instruction was originally given during a Passover supper (THIS bread) or that instruction was probably originally given on a Thursday (definitely NOT a Sunday). I wrote another post in June and shared my thoughts on the only every Sunday requirement.

Again, my main point is this: "God says it; that settles it" is not a workable approach to scripture. It's actually rude and disrespectful to say that. It's understood in a Bible discussion that both parties want to understand God's will. But for one to outright say "I just believe what the Bible says" is a jab at the other person. It's a way of saying, "I have figured out God's will because it's clear and obvious and I'm unbiased and those who disagree are obtuse or dishonest or ignorant." It's an attempt to gain superiority over another person, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught His followers to do. Beware of entering into a Bible discussion with someone who repeatedly says things like, "My opinion doesn't matter and yours doesn't matter either. What the Bible says is the only thing that matters." The question generally isn't, "What does the Bible say?" The question under consideration generally is "What does the Bible mean and how does it apply to us?"

I don't know anyone who "just does what the Bible says." In fact, I don't know anyone who even "just does what the New Testament says." We all pick and choose. Hermeneutics is where the rubber meets the road in how we determine what to pick and choose and how what we pick and choose applies to us today. And I'm learning that hermeneutics is quite complex and ambiguous at times. Thanks to Doy Moyer, I've learned that CENI isn't a hermeneutic at all. We're not so much trying to find the commands, examples and necessary inferences. The CENI are given to us. We're really trying to figure out which of those are meant for us to follow and how do we apply them. Let's not say "we just do what the Bible says" because you don't and I don't. We all have our "but that doesn't mean" exclusions from the Bible. A better conversation to have, instead of whether we do what the Bible says or not, is why don't we do what the Bible says sometimes.

If the examples that I've shown above aren't enough to cause you to at least stop and consider that you and I don't "just do what the Bible says", stay tuned. I have several more examples. I want to share these examples because before we can have a meaningful discussion of hermeneutics, we have to remove the false moral high ground that pretends to do just what the Bible says.

Anchor Texts

Sometimes disagreements over Bible topics lead to one or both of the parties in the discussion questioning the other's commitment to Scripture. Unfortunately, I've been on both sides of this. Some think that if you reach a different conclusion on some topic, then you don't have a high regard for Scripture or you're dishonest or biased and that prevents you from seeing or accepting truth. I know some think this because I once thought this and I was taught this.

I must confess that I'm not always as committed to Scripture as I should be. I'm not always honest. And frankly, I read the Bible with bias. However, I also believe that describes everyone else that reads the Bible, too. I'm not saying that we should ignore blatant disregard, dishonesty or bias. But let's not be quick to throw out these types of accusations. People know these dangers and typically want to avoid them. Let's be optimistic about others' motives.

Bible discussions should be actual discussions of the text instead of accusations toward those who don't agree with us. We can't have loving discussions if we're going to turn the discussions into righteousness contests. If we're going to get into a righteousness contest, I probably lose. I know myself and my weakness and selfishness and darkness. I lose. And even if I happen to win the righteousness contest, I still feel like I lost for even being in a righteousness contest. It would be so much better if we discussed the text and the theological and doctrinal issues involved and seek to learn from one another instead of seeking to prove the wrongness and faithlessness of anyone who disagrees.

With that admonition in mind, I think I've stumbled upon a reason why people disagree that has little or nothing to do with one's honesty or commitment. Understanding this may lead to more thoughtful discussions, more seeking to understand, and less questioning of others' motives or faith. I think that the key is understanding the concept of what I'm calling "anchor texts". I've never heard or read this anywhere else, so take it for what it's worth. But I'd really like to try to I explain what I mean by "anchor texts".

Anyone who has studied the Bible seriously has noticed that there are some seeming contradictions. Some of these are trivial and easily resolved. However, other seeming contradictions are really difficult and diligent and honest study still leaves bona fide tension. Some Bible texts are not easily reconciled with other Bible texts. I don't know any Bible student who hasn't wrestled with Bible texts that are in tension.

One of the most classic examples of this type of tension is the tension between free will and predestination. Perhaps I shouldn't mention this one because it generates so much passion on both sides. But the passion and intensity in both directions of this tension set the stage for the character assassinations that so often happen, so maybe it is a good example to mention.

The most staunch 5 point hyper-Calvinist still has to deal with the fact that God changed His mind based on Moses' intercession in Exodus 32:14 (and several other instances of God changing His mind or course of action based on the actions of people). A Calvinist has to deal with the fact that the Bible presents people as having real choices, and the course of their lives and the lives of others and even God's actions are affected by those choices. On the other hand, the most convinced open-theist still has to deal with Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 1-3 and the fact that Paul was a chosen vessel. There is tension between predestination and free-will. There are texts in the Bible that seem to support both ideas. Both sides of this have explanations for the texts that seem to support the opposing view. But each side anchors their belief on a set of texts and explains the passages that seem to support the other view in light of their "anchor texts".

That's not the only example. Consider women's roles (another one with quite a bit of passion on both sides). The most egalitarian or feminist among us still has to deal with 1 Timothy 2:11-12, Ephesians 5:22, etc. The most complementarian or patriarchal still has to deal with Deborah, 1 Cor. 11:5, Romans 16:1,3,7, Galatians 3:28, etc. Again, both sides have explanations for the seemingly opposing texts, viewing their own "anchor texts" as more clear and therefore a guiding light for interpreting the other passages.

Consider the doctrine of hell and this one has tension in three vectors. Eternal conscious torment proponents still have to deal with the passages like 1 John 2:2 and Rom. 5:18 that speak of salvation for all men. They still have to deal with the fact that the Bible provides two options, life or death and that destruction doesn't mean "kept alive for ever and ever in order to suffer". The annihilationists still have to deal with Matt. 25:46 and Rev. 14:9-11. The universalists have to deal with Matt. 7:13-14. And they all have their explanations of the other texts.

There are many more of these types of subjects. There is tension between faith and works. There is tension between pacifism and justified violence. There is tension between eternal security and the possibility of losing salvation, etc. The Bible is a work that requires interpretation and living in tension. Because of this variety of Bible teaching, "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it" just doesn't work. Interpreting the Bible is more than just getting your hermeneutics right. Exegeses are interrelated and application is cultural.

Something that complicates matters more is that most people have a theological and cultural framework and background that shapes how they read everything in the Bible. In other words, what someone chooses as an "anchor text" is very much influenced by his theological and cultural background, his faith tradition, his system of interpretation. These systems, in and of themselves, are not bad. In fact, they're helpful. Without them, we'd be forced to go back to basics every time we read the Bible. So, the result of a system is that almost every exegesis is influenced by the results of a number of other exegeses. To change one exegesis will likely have an effect on several others, and the relationships among them are not simple and changing one exegesis could threaten the whole system, and that's difficult, complex, and frankly very scary.

For example, a member of a church of Christ and a traditional Presbyterian have a completely different set of anchor texts because they have different systems. If one isn't familiar with the other's system, then an attempt to discuss a topic like infant baptism will be woefully unproductive. They're coming from completely different backgrounds and for a member of a church of Christ to change his exegesis of Acts 2:38 would have far reaching consequences on his system. Likewise, for the Presbyterian to change his exegesis of Eph. 1:4-5 would have many far reaching and complex implications to his system. If they're not familiar with one another's system or not willing to admit that they're using a system, then the discussion has the potential to end in attacks on one another's faith. Almost every exegesis depends on a large number of other exegeses. We must remember this in our discussions. These two don't disagree because one has faith and the other doesn't or one believes in inspiration and the other doesn't or because one is biased and the other isn't. They disagree because they have different systems of interpretation and therefore different anchor texts.

To be sure, I'm not saying that one theological system is as good as any other. I don't believe that at all. But I do believe a couple of things about these systems. First, I believe that if your system condemns all who don't accept your system, then your system is inherently not subject to correction and should be abandoned. This statement may not be immediately obvious, but think it through. Correcting a system means that it had a flaw. So, this brings a couple of options. One is that it is possible to have a flawed system and still not be condemned. That should beg the question of "Why is my flawed system acceptable to God, but others' flawed systems are not?" Another option is that the system itself must be abandoned because it is flawed, and you were condemned while you used that flawed system. Therefore, a system that condemns all who don't accept it cannot be subject to correction. Any system not subject to correction is dangerous.

A second thing I believe about these systems is that one's system determines one's anchor texts. Shifting anchor texts will require modifying one's system or abandoning it in favor of another system. It requires a huge amount of humility and courage to subject one's system to the test of reason and Scripture. Modifying or abandoning one's system can be extremely painful. I know this first hand because I'm still hurting badly from changing my system.  But we must subject even our system to Scripture so that the system can be modified or even abandoned. The best way I can think of for this type of testing to happen is for loving community discussions of these things among people who don't threaten one another if these discussions reveal a need to modify or abandon a system. And if someone isn't willing to subject his own system to this type of examination and test, then he has no right to ask others to do so.

So, when someone disagrees with me, it has much more to do with a difference in anchor texts than it does with a difference in integrity. Disagreement does NOT mean that they don't value Scripture. It does not mean that they're dishonest. It just means that they have a different theological system and therefore a different set of anchor texts to explain Bible doctrines that are in tension.

Would you please bring my stuff?

I've been considering for a long time how I should read my Bible. I wish I had a nice 1-2-3 formula for how to read the Bible, but I don't. The difficulty with answering the question, "How do I read the Bible?" is the question itself. It treats the Bible as one big monolithic book. It's not that at all.

In sermons about the inspiration and reliability of the Bible, I've heard it pointed out that the Bible is a collection of writings by about 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years. I've actually verified those claims and they are more or less accurate and I believe they are evidence of inspiration and reliability. So, my question is this... Why have I not remembered this diversity of authorship and history when it comes to interpretation? Why have I treated the Bible like it's monolithic? Like there is no difference in how we should interpret First Corinthians, Acts, and Leviticus?

The Pentateuch has a purpose and an author (or authors or at least editors) and a historical and cultural context and various literary styles. The same is true about Joshua. Consider how different the collection of Psalms is from the other books. Then there is Isaiah which is beautiful and unique. Ruth stands out as different and was possibly written at a different time than the setting of the story it tells. Daniel is an astounding mix of history and figures and foretelling. Each of the Gospels has an author, an intended audience, and purpose. Acts... Revelation... I shouldn't read any of those books exactly the same way. I could go on thinking about these things for the rest of the books of the Bible. What I conclude is that there is no one-size-fits-all formula to interpret all of them. Each of them is a unique book with an author and a purpose and a historical context and a literary style, etc.

Consider more recent literature originally written in my own native language by a single author and parts of this interpretive principle still hold true. I don't read all of C.S. Lewis's books the same way because I understand that they're different in style and purpose. Why, then, would I try to take a collection of writings by different authors over many centuries and force one single style of interpreting them?

It just doesn't make sense. It recently dawned on me that I was asking the wrong question. The question is not, "How do I read my Bible?" The question is "How do I read THIS writing?" Even with that, the question is still incomplete. Even though each book in the Bible is unique, I still have to also consider that it is a unique part of a whole story. Each book is part of a story that God invites us to join. There are various over-arching themes throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Those must be considered as well or I'll miss the point of what I'm reading. Reading the Bible is not a simple formulaic 1-2-3 process.

That absence of a simple formula doesn't mean the Bible is unintelligible or that its message is only available to the intelligentsia. Not at all! Its themes are quite accessible and I'm daily thankful for our unprecedented access to the inspired scripture. Jesus boiled ALL of  it down to this: Love God and love the people He made (Matt. 22:37-40). Paul, in describing the fruit of the spirit, claims there is no law against those virtues, love, joy, peace, patience, etc. (Gal. 5:22-23). Peter, discussing "Christian graces," tells us to grow in these, faith, knowledge, love, etc. and we'll never stumble (2 Pet. 1:10). It's really not difficult to get the message. God is exactly like Jesus and He loves, serves, and forgives and He invites us to join Him in this work. God sure has made Himself accessible, even in creation itself (Rom. 1:20). God's truth is not limited to the elite.

No, God's truth and love and freedom are not only for the elite. What this absence of a uniform hermeneutic formula means is that the Bible will provide you with more than a lifetime of challenge and discovery. It's simply beautiful! The best advice I know to give anyone about reading the Bible right now is this, and this is just advice, not a formula.

1. Read it frequently and thoroughly. 
2. It is about Jesus from beginning to end. Never forget that while reading any part of it. 
3. Jesus is exactly what God is like and His nature is especially revealed on the cross. Therefore, read anything inspired by God with an extreme bias of love for the unlovable, forgiveness for the unforgivable, mercy over judgment, and with the knowledge that self-sacrificial love overcomes evil and hatred and bitterness and division and violence. 
4. Remember that it wasn't written to you all at once by one person.

My coat and books

The realization that I was asking the wrong question dawned upon me as I was reading through 2 Timothy, sent there by a reference to Hymenaeus and Philetus. This verse, 2 Tim. 4:13 jumped out at me during the reading.

The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Why on earth is this included for us? How is this part of God's story? What can I learn from this? That Paul was forgetful? That it was spring when he left Troas and he didn't need his coat? Or maybe that he was generous and loaned Carpus his coat? Is this why he wanted Timothy to come before winter (verse 21)? What were the books? Were they Scripture? What did Paul read anyway? Did he have notes he had written and wanted to review them again and the Holy Spirit couldn't just make those thoughts reappear in his mind? What is this verse and why is it here? And why did I forget this verse existed? If every word of the Bible is inspired why wasn't I ever tasked to memorize this verse or the dozens of greetings and personal notes in Paul's letters?

Maybe, just maybe, that statement is there to remind us that we've been given the privilege of eavesdropping on a personal letter. Second Timothy was just that. A personal letter from Paul (I believe) to Timothy. And by skimming over this verse and others like it throughout the epistles (Tell Olympas 'nem I said hi... Rom. 16:15, etc.) for years and years, I've missed the truth that I'm not supposed to read 2 Timothy or the other epistles like a novel or a history book or legal document or, worse yet, like a blue print. I'm supposed to read 2 Timothy like it's a personal letter from an older brother to a younger brother in Christ and close friend that he loved dearly and missed greatly and had cried with many times because that's exactly what it is. It is not a church manual. It is not a creed. It is not even a preacher's manual. It is "Timothy, I love and appreciate you. Beware, some mean people are going to do some awful things to you like they have done to me. Keep your faith in the resurrection of Christ with sincere love and a pure conscience. Keep on preaching that, regardless of opposition. Brother, I can't wait to see you again." And when I keep in mind that it is that type of letter, I realize that many situations that applied to Timothy in that time do not apply to me in my time. I stop looking for specific instructions not written to me and that don't make sense to me and I instead drown my heart in the love and appreciation and principles that guided their relationship. That's what really teaches me and causes me to grow closer to God and my brethren. (Please don't misunderstand this to mean that there are no specifics that apply to us. See my last post where I point out that fasting is a specific that I have overlooked. Baptism is quite specific, etc.)

Could that be why those greetings and personal details are included? As a reminder of what we are reading? And if that's not THE reason, shouldn't their presence at least remind us of the truth that we're privileged to read a personal letter?

Rachel Held Evans has some interesting comments on this verse and several others like it. I think she is onto something. Please read that blog entry of hers.

I believe the Bible is inspired, all of it. I believe it is one way that God communicates to us. I believe it is God telling us the story of His people. I do not believe it is "just" a story, but I do believe it tells a story. I believe God invites us to join in His story and become His people. If I accept the Bible for what it is and how He gave it to us instead of trying to make it what I want it to be, it will mold me, transform me, challenge me, and point me to His Son. It will make me more like Him.

What Is God Like?

My image of God has gone through transformation recently. Primarily, this transformation has been based on what Jesus said about God and Himself. Also, it has been based on what the rest of the New Testament says about Jesus. This transformation of my image of God is based on Scripture and I'm disappointed that I haven't grasped what the Scripture says before. I believe that I have a LONG way to go to mature in this view, but I recently had a breakthrough when reading the book of John.

I honestly admit that I have a difficult time imagining God. God seems abstract to me and always has. When I'm honest, even the concept seems nebulous. A being that exists beyond space-time? Space-time is all that I really know. I don't really like not being able to understand or describe concepts. I'm an engineer by education and by choice. I analyze data to find precise answers. I work better with the concrete. I need specific definitions. I prefer discrete to mysterious, and the Bible sometimes presents God as mysterious. I prefer homogeneous to paradoxical and the Bible offers paradoxical portraits of God. I struggle to understand and reconcile and accept this.

Most everything else that I know and I am familiar with, I can describe with words or symbols. I can describe my house. I can describe my car. I can even describe things that I can't see, like electricity or wind. I can describe how to solve a math problem or how to build a voice or data network. I can even describe more abstract things. For example, I can describe my emotions. I can describe happiness, sadness, anger, calmness, love and hate. But I struggle to describe God and I always have.

Who is God? What does He do? How does He treat people? How does He use His power? What does He want to tell us? What does He want from us?

Then, it hit me. Why am I so obtuse? Why am I so slow to learn?

John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." 

John 8:19  If you knew Me, you would know My Father also.

John 10:30  I and the Father are One.

John 12:45 The one who looks at Me is seeing the One who sent Me

John 14:7 If you really know Me, you will know My Father as well.

John 14:8-9 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know Me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

God looks and acts exactly like Jesus. So simple yet so profound. The book of John really nails this point. There is this cycle throughout the book: one or more claims that Jesus is God followed by one or more stories that tell us something Jesus did. The message of John is so plain. Jesus is God. This is what God does.

Jesus is God.
God loves and helps the helpless. (water to wine) 

Jesus is God.
God loves and talks to and teaches the self-righteous. God loves and associates with and teaches the outcasts and immoral. (Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman)

Jesus is God.
God brings hope and healing to the lame. 

Jesus is God.
God rescues and does not condemn the adulteress. 

Jesus is God.
God gives sight to the blind.

Jesus is God.
God raises the dead!

Jesus is God.
God offers the most humble service (even washes nasty feet) and expects us to do the same.

Jesus is God.
God overcomes evil and violence with self-sacrificial submission and love.

Jesus is God.
God overcomes death!!!

John isn't just one book with a unique message in the canon. No, the early disciples agree. The rest of the Bible agrees. The main point of the Old Testament is Jesus (John 5:39, 45-46; John 1:45; Luke 24:27, 44, etc. etc.). The books included in the New Testament canon were included because they testify of Jesus.

The Hebrew writer said that the way God speaks to us now is through His Son, who is the EXACT representation of God's being (Heb. 1:1-3). Paul agrees. He wrote that the Son is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). ALL of the fullness of God dwells in Jesus (Col. 1:19; Col. 2:9).

Do you see how profound that is? God is not a book. God is not a doctrine. God is not a church. God is not rules. God is not a feeling. God is not a relationship. God is not an egotistical cosmic despot. God is Jesus. God is perfectly and completely revealed to us in the person, Jesus. Others-oriented, self-sacrificial, loving, and serving. In the past, when I've referred to the word of God, I've primarily meant the Bible. However, when the Bible refers to the word of God, it primarily means Jesus. I wanted words and symbols to describe God, but God gave me a person. This is what John was talking about when he said the the Word was God. Jesus is God's word.

The way God has always been, the way God is, and the way God always will be is shown in Jesus. Any concept of God or view of God that is incompatible with Jesus is erroneous.  Jesus is how God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. The Bible helps us to understand God in that the Bible says that the exact, flawless, complete revelation of God is Jesus. The Bible points us to Jesus, from beginning to end. It must be read that way.

This same Jesus dwells in us by His Spirit and wants us to grow to be made more like Him.

Restudying

When challenged about changing his mind on economic policy, John Maynard Keynes is reputed to have answered:

When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?

Whether he actually said that or whether it is original to him is up for some debate. Regardless, he did change his mind on some key economic issues and he was criticized for changing his mind, and was sometimes in the spot of defending his change of opinion. He probably did say something very similar to that at some point.  Anyway, those are wise words. I think it's fair for a person who is committed to learning and committed to truth to change his mind. New knowledge and experience sheds new light.

In contrast, one criticism I've heard of John Calvin is that he first published his definitive work,  The Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 1536 at the age of 27. There were several later editions with the final edition published in 1559. However, most agree that there were no substantial changes to the theology set forth in the original. So, between the age of 27 and 50, John Calvin didn't significantly change his mind on any theological topic. I think that criticism is legitimate. Calvin was a brilliant mind and his asceticism was incomparable. To produce a volume that monumental at the age of 27 is remarkable and I do not want to diminish that accomplishment. However, I find it quite suspicious that his theology did not change during those 23 years (or ever after that). Was he so knowledgeable and experienced and mature at the age of 27 that he was able to systematize his theology so airtight and perfectly that it required no significant change? Or did he stubbornly defend what he already believed and had already written in his magnum opus? The latter seems more likely to me.

John Calvin, Father of Reformed Theology

I see a similar problem with commitment to orthodoxy today. I'm afraid that many churches have a commitment to "fundamental" doctrines that is similar to Calvin's commitment to his Institutes. The conclusions are already defined. A member can study and research all he wants. Restudy, even. However, after the study and research, he still has to come back to orthodoxy. Anything other than orthodoxy will likely be met with resistance, suspicion, rebuke, and/or even derision. One may even get kicked out of fellowship or told that he is not really a Christian, all because he doesn't accept the group's orthodoxy after honest study and research.

In these churches, you can research archaeology, science, biology, and history all you want. Pursue degrees, even doctorate level degrees, in those disciplines. But in the end, you have to come back to the position of a literal Adam who lived 6,000 years ago beginning on the sixth literal day of the existence of the universe. You have to come back to the conclusion that Moses authored all of the Pentateuch. You have to conclude that the Exodus, wandering, and conquest happened exactly how the Bible describes them. If you don't come to those conclusions, your fellowship is at risk.

Another example, study hermeneutics all you want. Research how the Jews throughout history read and interpreted their Scripture. Research how the early church fathers read and interpreted the Bible. Learn all the Greek and Hebrew you can. It's especially good to learn Greek and Hebrew. But all of this learning and research is only good if you come back to the inerrantist / fundamentalist approach (unknown to the world before the 19th century) as the only valid way to interpret the Bible. Otherwise, you'll likely be accused of not having a high regard for Scripture.

And still another example... Restudy the topic of hell all you want. Find out all that the Old Testament says about it. Learn the Jewish beliefs between the testaments about the ultimate end of the wicked. Find out what people in Jesus' day believed. Find everything Jesus said about it. Consider all that the New Testament authors said about it. Find out what the early church fathers believed. But when you're finished with that, you must conclude that we have an immortal soul and that the wicked will be consciously tormented every second of all eternity in hell. Otherwise, much of evangelical Christendom will turn on you.

I could add more examples, but I think these make the point. Evangelical Christians have a problem. And dare I be so bold as to specifically mention my own group, the churches of Christ, as having this problem in particular. The problem is that the commitment to defending certain orthodox views and excluding those who don't hold those views is stifling the freedom to ask questions and learn and grow. Certain questions are off-limits. (This is not true of all evangelical churches nor is it true of all churches of Christ. For example, the church that I am a member of now is certainly not like this. I have immense grace and freedom to ask questions and discuss "off-limits" topics. I try to exercise that freedom responsibly, not attempting to persuade and not pressing too firmly on uncomfortable issues.)

The message that this commitment to orthodoxy sends is this. Certain issues are decided. Truth has been found. Restudy all you want. Just don't draw any different conclusions on these issues, no matter what else you learn. When issues are decided and codified, all you're allowed to learn when restudying are new arguments that support the existing orthodoxy. You may tweak the existing orthodoxy slightly to make it more resistant to arguments against it, like Calvin did, but you are not allowed to contradict these orthodox positions. I've even heard it said, "When someone says they're 'restudying' something, that means that they don't like the truth on that topic any more." I've restudied several topics, and I don't remember ever doing so because of an aversion to truth (or even just because I didn't like what I already believed). However, new (to me) information has prompted restudy several times.

So what's the solution? I don't know, except that we must eliminate the "they don't like the truth" rhetoric. Likewise, those who disagree with orthodoxy must also show gentleness and love. Questioning these issues is extremely uncomfortable, and frankly, not everyone is interested in asking these questions. That's okay. Those willing to question and even change their view on orthodox issues must be sensitive to that. They must not hold contempt for those who are comfortable with and/or agree with existing doctrines.

Some think, and will tell you flatly, that when interpretations differ, it's because one or both parties are wrong. When that narrow view of truth is held by one or both parties in a discussion, the discussion often becomes a contest to see who can resist admitting a mistake first. The first to admit a mistake loses the debate and nobody wants to do that. Then, pride, rather than love, wins. Rachel Held Evans has an excellent post on how to respond when our interpretations differ. I love this quote from that post.

In some cases, folks are so committed to their particular views on these issues they seem incapable of making a distinction between the Bible itself and their interpretation of it, and so any critique of that interpretation is seen as a critique of Scripture itself!  And so we miss one another entirely. Instead of a lively, impassioned debate about the text, we engage in lively, impassioned debates about one another’s commitment to the faith.

I've seen that play out too many times. I've been both the perpetrator and the victim in those kinds of discussions. It's not good and it doesn't display a Christ-like spirit. Is being right the basis (or even a goal) for unity or is service to one another and service to the community, Christ-like love in other words, the basis for unity? Let's strive to make Christ-like love, not orthodoxy, the basis for unity.

Book Review: A Year of Biblical Womanhood

At the end of last year I listed the books that I had read. Well, since then, I've remembered a couple that I read that didn't make the list. So, I decided that I'd use this space to review books as I read them. It may be insanely boring to you or you may find it interesting. You may agree or you may disagree. You may love a book that I hate. But, it's just a way for me to keep up with what I've read and what my thoughts are on what I'm reading. Okay... intro done.

The first book I read in 2013 was A Year of Biblical Womanhood by Rachel Held Evans. Below is the first paragraph from the description on the back of the book.

Strong-willed and independent, Rachel Held Evans couldn’t sew a button on a blouse before she embarked on a radical life experiment—a year of biblical womanhood. Intrigued by the traditionalist resurgence that led many of her friends to abandon their careers to assume traditional gender roles in the home, Evans decides to try it for herself, vowing to take all of the Bible’s instructions for women as literally as possible for a year.  

She emphasizes a virtue each month, roughly corresponding to the Jewish year by beginning in October and ending in September. So, each month is basically a chapter. Some of the virtues are simply Christian virtues that anyone should strive for, no matter their gender, for example gentleness, valor, justice, grace. Other virtues are typically thought of as primarily feminine, for example domesticity, beauty, modesty, silence.

Between the months, she explores a woman of the Bible. I particularly enjoyed these interludes. Of course, she writes about the obvious women like Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Ruth. Those are women who have been revered and celebrated by many. However, she also courageously explores women of the Bible who have been mostly neglected or overshadowed by other characters in their story, like Tamar (the daughter-in-law of Judah), Vashti, and Leah.

Likely, the first question a Christian will ask when reading this book is, "Why is she doing all of these Old Testament things?" Do not make the mistake of assuming that Evans is making a hermeneutical error here. She is exploring Biblical womanhood, and the Old Testament is part of the Bible. Though I haven't read AJ Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically, I gather that her attempt is similar in scope. She corresponds with a Jewish lady for help in understanding and carrying out many of the Old Testament traditions. She travels to Pennsylvania to converse with Amish and Mennonite women about modesty. She visits a monastery in Alabama to explore silence and prayer. She considers what both Testaments say about women and how people have interpreted and applied those things.

This book is partly about complementarianism versus egalitarianism and partly about hermeneutics. It is obvious that Evans is at odds with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and I can't say that I blame her. She is egalitarian in her view and makes a good biblical case for her view. But there is no doubt that one's hermeneutics will influence whether one is complementarian or egalitarian.

Practically, though, (This is my opinion; I don't recall Evans stating this.) modern American marriages are egalitarian. Even the staunchest complementarians I know, the ones who remind me often of 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Ephesians 5:22, those men ask permission before going hunting, playing golf, or whatever else they do to hang out with the guys. They also do dishes, laundry, cook, and change diapers. I'm not saying they're not Biblical men and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a man doing household chores. I'm just saying that I once claimed to be a staunch complementarian and I asked permission, did all those household chores, and I never once overruled my wife. The same is true, to the best of my knowledge, of almost every other "complementarian" husband I know. So, practically, complementarianism seems non-existent in modern American marriages anyway, even among complementarians. What's wrong with admitting it? Evans builds a good case for an egalitarian marriage.

Regarding the roles in the church, complementarianism versus egalitarianism makes more practical sense in America. I know plenty of churches that won't allow women even so much as to announce to the congregation that her child is sick and her husband is home with the sick child (another example of the prevalence of egalitarian marriages among so-called complementarians). Most conservative evangelical churches will not allow women to be pastors. Many will not allow women to be deacons or evangelists, either. There are some that won't allow women to teach a Bible class if men are present. Again, hermeneutics come into play here. The staunchest complementarians have some problems, namely Priscilla, the praying and prophesying women in 1 Corinthians 11, Junia the apostle, Phoebe the deacon, and others. The boldest egalitarians have some problems, namely Paul. Especially troubling to egalitarians are his instructions to Timothy that women are not to have authority over men.

Evans does an admirable job of dealing with the complementarian proof texts and she does a very good job of establishing that the Bible teaches egalitarian principles as the ideal. Still, though, some of her explanations of the complementarian texts were as uncomfortable as the complementarians fidgeting over Junia and female prophets and Deborah.

Again, it comes back to hermeneutics. She has some brilliant nuggets about hermeneutics, and this is where the book shines. Though it's (thankfully) not a book about hermeneutics (that wouldn't have sold nearly as well), the hermeneutic lessons she shares are very good. Allow me to quote some that stood out to me.

The Bible isn’t an answer book. It isn’t a self-help manual. It isn’t a flat, perspicuous list of rules and regulations that we can interpret objectively and apply unilaterally to our lives.

The following one I think describes Evans and the "Biblical manhood and womanhood" crowd and many people I know and even me.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word (like manhood, womanhood, politics, economics, marriage, and even equality), we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t fit our tastes... More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

Still more good stuff on hermeneutics.

[T]he notion that [the Bible] contains a sort of one-size-fits-all formula for how to be a woman of faith is a myth... If love was Jesus’ definition of “biblical,” then perhaps it should be mine.

She astutely points out this dirty little hermeneutical truth that nobody wants to admit.

For those who count the Bible as sacred, interpretation is not a matter of whether to pick and choose, but how to pick and choose. We are all selective. 

And after going through some examples that prove the truth that you can find whatever you're looking for in the Bible, she summarizes with this gem.

Are we reading with the prejudice of love or are we reading with the prejudices of judgment and power, self-interest and greed?

All in all, I highly recommend this book. If you want to be comfortable and continue to ignore some of the things in the Bible that don't fit what you want the Bible to say, don't read it. If you want to pick her apart and bash her project and call her Satan's helper, you'll certainly find cause to do that. Others have. Don't expect to agree with all her conclusions and methods and language. But I think this book is witty and challenging and well written. I definitely give it a thumbs up. Even where I disagree with her, I respect her approach.

How Do I Read My Bible?

How do I read my Bible? How do you read your Bible? How have others read the Bible in the past? Is there only one right way to read the Bible? If so, what is that right way? These kinds of questions have honestly perplexed me for the past several months. I'm learning more about how to read the Bible and I'm learning more about how others read the Bible. And I'm learning that most of us have room for improvement.

NT Wright has some excellent advice for reading the Bible in this video. And, his first answer to the question, "How do we read the Bible? Any thoughts? Any recommendations?" is most excellent. He responds, "Frequently and thoroughly."

After that clever yet profound response, Wright suggests that we read books straight through in one sitting rather than exclusively in 10 verse chunks. We need to read epistles in their entirety in one sitting. We need to read the gospels in their entirety at once. And not just that, we need to read them with an awareness of the whole sweep of Scripture.

The only time I have ever taught the book of Romans in a class, my first two or three lessons were spent talking about the entirety of the epistle. The assignment I gave the class was to read the entire letter in one sitting at least three times before we begin reading it paragraph by paragraph. I asked them to write down 5-10 main points in the letter after the third reading. Only after that did we begin looking at the text paragraph by paragraph, frequently reminding ourselves of the main themes. I implored the class NOT to consult a commentary until they had read the letter through at least three times. I was amazed by how much easier some passages in Romans were when there was a constant awareness of the overall theme of the epistle and the place in the overall Bible story that the letter occupied.

As NT Wright says in the video "The Whole Sweep of Scripture", we should view each small passage as a window through which we see the whole thing. Reading Scripture aloud is actually declaring the mighty works of God. Never lose sight of the whole sweep of the Bible.

Of course, reading small sections at a time is certainly an acceptable way to read the Bible. There are times when it is the only practical way to read it. But it can't be the only way we ever read the Bible if we want to truly understand it. When we do read those small sections, we must understand that small section is giving us a unique perspective on the whole story. Remember that in some way, that small section is declaring to us the mighty works of God, and the mightiest work of God was raising Jesus.

Far too often I have gotten caught up in a topic. What does the Bible teach about alcohol? Or, what does the Bible teach about pacifism? Or, what does the Bible teach about the roles of men and women? Or, what does the Bible teach about hell? Or, what does the Bible teach about grace? Etc. Then, when I'm researching that topic I break out my trusty concordance or search software. I find and read all the passages.

When I do that, I don't always give those verses their proper place in the whole sweep of Scripture. I usually find that several of those passages say quite different things. What I end up with is a bunch of patches that I'm trying to force together neatly into a garment. Usually the garment I make from the patches looks a lot like the garment I wanted to make before I found all the patches, except that it's a bit rough and irregular in spots. And I just ignore the irregular and rough spots. Let's pretend they're not there.

I've found that I've done a lot better when I find something in the course of reading large sections at a time. Then, I get the overall sense of what's going on, and when something stands out to me that I hadn't noticed before, I'm much more likely to get the sense of how it fits into the big picture. And I can learn something new that is consistent with the main themes of Scripture.

This video reminds me of some things I was taught by one of my favorite preachers, Bob Waldron. He greatly emphasized to me the importance of understanding that the Bible tells a story. Learning where characters and events fit into the story is essential to understanding any of the stories that tell the one big story. He developed a three cycle approach to learning and memorizing the Bible story that has helped me tremendously. I highly recommend that, and would love to help you learn this overall story and help you organize that knowledge.

How ever you read your Bible, whether in small chunks or large, do so remembering that it is a story. It's a story of love. It's a story of redemption. The main point of the Bible, both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is Jesus. God longs for us to come to Him. He draws us to Him and shows us Himself through Jesus. Remember the mighty works of God.

Principles and Rules

Rules can be easy to follow. Principles can be difficult to apply. About the New Testament I've asked myself, "Is it a collection of rules or a collection of literature that contains principles?" By and large, it seems that the latter is true. Consider the literature types in the New Testament. There are four biographies of Jesus, one book of the history of the early community of believers, a collection of letters (some addressed to collective groups of Christians and others addressed to individuals), and a book of prophecy. None of those are technical how-to books or legal documents. Given the type of literature God inspired and preserved for us, it seems more reasonable to conclude that He gave us principles to show us what is good rather than a set of arbitrary rules.

Sometimes, situations arise where the right thing to do is not crystal clear. Sometimes there are rules that come into conflict for a variety of reasons, whether it be timing, an emergency, historical and cultural context, or some other chance occurrence. Jesus deals with a situation like this with the Old Testament law in John 7, especially verses 16-24. The Law of Moses commanded circumcision on the 8th day for male children. The Law of Moses also commanded rest on the Sabbath. So, what do we do with a male child who turns 8 days old on the Sabbath? It's not crystal clear. Jewish rabbis and Jewish tradition held that you were to circumcise a child on the Sabbath if he were 8 days old that day. Jesus seems to approve of this interpretation. (Maybe not, it's hard for me to tell from John 7. He doesn't seem to condemn this interpretation, at least.) In showing that His healing on the Sabbath did not violate the law, He points to this accepted interpretation of the law of Moses. Then, He says to the Jews in verse 24, "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

It seems that Jesus is saying here, "Don't judge so quickly. Dig a little deeper. Consider the overall teaching of God's word and the whole situation and then decide what is right." In healing, Jesus was showing mercy and love, great principles that outweigh the command to rest on the Sabbath. (See also Matthew 12:1-14.) The Jews' judgment of Him wasn't based on righteousness and the principles of God's word. It was rooted in their desire to condemn and kill Jesus (John 7:1, 19).

What's our lesson from this? I've used, and heard others use, John 7:24 as a justification for condemning people who disagree with me. However, it seems that is the opposite of what Jesus was actually saying. Jesus isn't giving the Pharisees license to condemn others. Rather, He is teaching them to refrain from condemning others and to be innocent and holy in their discernment. The Pharisees' problem was their desire to condemn and kill Jesus. That's why they judged Him. They were looking for any misstep. Any excuse would do. When I used John 7:24 to justify condemning others, I didn't realize that Jesus was actually correcting the Pharisees for their desire to condemn Him.

You see, the problem here was the Pharisees' desire to condemn. They were not acting from love, the greatest principle in the law. While they likely believed they were doing God's work, they hated Jesus. In their zeal to condemn those who disagreed with their rules, they incorrectly condemned Jesus under the guise of protecting and upholding rules, rules that they believed were from God. However, in their protecting of these rules, they had neglected the principles of God's word.

A passage that comes to mind here is Galatians 5:22-23. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Remember, it is never wrong to love, to seek peace, to be patient, etc. There is no law that can stand against these great principles in God's word. In this same chapter, verse 14, Paul says that the entire law is fulfilled in love. Love selflessly and you will not break any of God's rules. Seek to condemn, as the Pharisees did, and you are likely to misapply God's word.

I pray that I can do everything from love, more like Him.

Overemphasizing Love

I've heard it said that some people "overemphasize love". So, I asked myself the question, "Is it possible to overemphasize love?" I suppose it depends on what is meant by that. It is possible to distort any message by omitting some topic that is part of the message. So, if what is meant by that is "You omit the fear of judgment," or "You omit obedience," then there could be some validity to the suggestion that the message of Christ is being distorted. However, the criticism should be stated more specifically to be useful. It seems to me that saying that one is "overemphasizing love" indicates either a misunderstanding of love or a misunderstanding of the message of Christ.

I think that it is impossible to overemphasize love when talking about the teachings of Christ. I have stated here and elsewhere that love is at the center of all of God's communication with us. I sincerely believe that. Love is not just the most important principle in God's word, it is the whole of God's word. Love is the essence of who God is.

In thinking about this, I did a quick look through the New Testament and I realized that I have not begun to understand love's importance. To think that someone is overemphasizing love is either to misunderstand love or to misunderstand the Bible. Consider the following passages with me.

Mat 22:37-40  And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  (38)  This is the great and first commandment.  (39)  And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  (40)  On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.

Rom 13:8-10  Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.  (9)  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  (10)  Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law.

Gal 5:14  For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Jas 2:8  Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:

1Jn 4:7-11  Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God.  (8)  He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.  (9)  Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.  (10)  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  (11)  Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

1Jn 4:20-21  If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen.  (21)  And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.

And, perhaps the most famous of all passages about love is 1 Corinthians 13, the love chapter. Paul uses hyperbole to state the importance of love. Tongues of angels, perfect knowledge, faith to move mountains, and extreme generosity and altruism are nothing without love. Love is greater than any virtue, including faith and hope. How could Paul have placed any more emphasis on love than he did in this chapter? Did he overemphasize love?

And this is only a beginning. There are many more passages that say essentially the same thing. I could easily list 10 more verses. All of God's communication with us is centered around love. Love is such a radical virtue that I don't begin to understand. I struggle with the commandment to love my brethren (let alone my enemies) while Jesus said on the cross about those responsible for torturing him to death, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

So, I don't think it's possible to overemphasize love. God is love. He loves even His enemies.

And He commands us to love our enemies. Who is my enemy? Is it someone who disagrees with me doctrinally? Is it someone who has slandered me? Is it an addict? Is it a homosexual? Is it an atheist? Is it someone who disagrees with me politically? Who is it that I believe is my enemy? I need to seek them out and actively love them. I need to seek those who cannot possibly return my service to them and serve them, expecting nothing in return. Love and serve sacrificially. When they treat me harshly and do not appreciate what I am doing for them, I need to continue loving them. Continue serving them. When they hurt and betray me, I should pray for their forgiveness. I need to show this love while they are still my enemy. That is the love of Jesus.

And the goal of God's love is to improve us. Likewise the goal of our love to our enemies is to help them. And He helped us by doing for us what we could not do. He loved us first. He showed us sacrificial, unselfish, generous, benevolent love. He sacrificed for and served us first. Likewise, for our enemies,we are to love them first with true, sacrificial love that seeks their best interest, that seeks to lead them to Christ for their own good. Love that only rebukes and chastens without serving and sacrificing is not love at all.

And in addition to loving our enemies, Christians should love one another in an extreme way. Jesus said in John 13:35, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." How are Christians known by all men? Is it "They are the ones who hate homosexuals"? Or is it "They are the ones who hate President Obama?" Or is it "They are the ones who think they're the only ones"? Or  is it "They are the ones who talk about hell all the time"? Or is it "They are the ones who reject evolution"? Or is it, "They are the ones who eat Chick-Fil-A"? If we, as Christians, are primarily known as anything other than, "They are the ones who love one another the way that Jesus loves them," then we don't love enough. We need to love more and more.

And since I mentioned Chick-Fil-A, I'll digress for a moment. The Chick-Fil-A in my town has been great for the community. They have donated money to worthy charities to support awareness for and research into serious diseases such as Meningitis. They have been active in raising awareness and funds for adoption of underprivileged children. They donated much food, water, and labor when a natural disaster struck our community. They close on Sundays in support of balance in their employees lives. Mr. Cathy has now stated clearly when asked his unsurprising beliefs about marriage. (I regret that the single latter action has gotten so much more attention than the multiple former ones.) I support all of that and I support them for those reasons more than because I like their chicken and milkshakes.

The first step for me to realizing how much I have to grow in love was to realize that I don't love like God loves. God loves perfectly and unconditionally. I attach strings and love selfishly. I pray that He will teach me to love my brethren and my enemies, more like Him.