How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 4)

Have I clearly identified and defined the issue?

Before taking a stand on any difficult issue, it is essential that we take some time to clearly understand and define the issue. It might be good to answer these questions:

a.       Is this issue an essential? In the Restoration Movement, we have always operated under the slogan: “In essentials unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things love.” This slogan isn’t of course unique to the Restoration Movement. There is wisdom in this principle. There are such things as essentials and opinions in theology, and it is important to know the difference between the two. We don’t have the same disposition towards essentials and opinions. There is a flexibility and freedom in opinions that doesn’t necessarily exist in the essentials of the faith. This principle also highlights the superiority of love in all things. But like all principles, this one has within it a major flaw. What exactly counts as an essential or an opinion? And who gets to decide? Some groups see adult immersion as an essential. Some groups see glossolalia as essential. Some groups see dispensational eschatology as an essential. Others see specific church governance structures as essential. The only point that I wish to make here is that when we are taking a stand on any issue we should pause to ask ourselves, “How essential is this issue to me?” and “How essential is this issue to others?” Maybe I could phrase it another way: How willing are you to damn another over this issue? And if an issue is an essential to you, can you justify that position? There are certainly issues that are this important, but I would humbly suggest that these issues are relatively few. Most issues that we will have to take a stand on fall into the category of opinion. Don’t get me wrong though. Just because it is an opinion does not mean that we shouldn’t have an opinion – even a strong, passionate one. But it does mean that we should have more charity with opposing views.

b.      Does this issue involve a principle or a practice? Some passages teach principles. They are broad in their scope and application. Some passages, on the other hand teach specific practices in specific contexts. Maybe the best example of this involves the role of women in the Church. Galatians 3 teaches a broad principle. When Paul says that within the Church there is neither male nor female he is saying nothing about day-to-day ministry within particular congregations. This is one phrase among several in this text which is stating a broad principle of unity and equality within the family of faith. In 1 Corinthians 14 however he restricts the role of women within that particular congregation. This text is focused on practice and application. It is narrower in its intent than Galatians 3. Many debates are the consequence of one side arguing a principle (“Women and men are equal.”) and the other side arguing a practice (“Women and men, while equal, do different things within the church.”).

c.       Is this a good/better issue? May Christians watch R rated movies? May Christians drink alcohol or smoke cigars? May Christians go to casinos? These types of ethical questions cause no end of debates between Christians. Some would argue on the side of freedom. Some others would argue on the side of righteousness. One side would accuse the other of legalism. The other side would respond with accusations of cheap grace and self-indulgence.  I would argue that usually these debates are framed up in the wrong way. We talk about these things as good or bad, right or wrong. It may be more constructive to talk about them as wise or foolish. This seems to be the approach that Paul uses with the Corinthian church. Certain things may be permissible, but are they beneficial?

d.      Is this issue implicit or explicit? There is not a verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids abortion. There is not a verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids the institution of slavery. In fact, some passages seem to support the institution. There are some issues that are only implicit in scripture. Implicit issues require that we understand how the Bible creates a sort of “hermeneutical trajectory” for many issues. For instance, the Bible doesn’t forbid abortion. But the Bible does establish that all people have been created in God’s image and are precious to Him. The Bible does establish principles of justice especially for the vulnerable and the weak. The Bible also forbids murder. Based on these clear teachings of scripture, we can discern a trajectory that when read in our day would forbid the practice of abortion.

e.      How are key terms being defined? I have a good friend who begins virtually every theological discussion with the question “What do you mean by that?” We occasionally give him a hard time about it, but it is actually a very good question to ask. There are so many times where two people will be discussing an issue being totally oblivious to the fact that they are defining the terms completely differently. For instance, when I say “pacifism” what comes to your mind? How would you define it? Chances are good that your definition may be completely different than the definition of someone else. Definitions matter. If we are going to take a stand on difficult issues, we have to take care to understand the way that we are using key terms. Pause to ask the question, “What do you mean by that?” You may also want to pause and ask yourself the question, “What do I mean by that?”


Part 3
Part 2
Part 1
 

John Piper on Non-Instrumental Worship

Divisions within the Churches of Christ (Non-Instrumental)

The following is a link to a very brief summary of the different groups within the non-instrumental Churches of Christ illustrating the difficulty of speaking only where scripture speaks...

churches of Christ

Restoration Movement Hermeneutics

…With respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply the supposed deficiency by making laws for the Church…

…Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection…No such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church…

…Who, then, would not be the first among us to give up human inventions in the worship of God and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren, that our breaches might thus be healed? Who would not willingly conform to the original pattern laid down in the New Testament, for this happy purpose?...

Excerpts from Thomas Campbell in The Declaration and Address (Sept. 7, 1809)

Restoration Movement Hermeneutics

Cummins’ four guiding principles from The Declaration and Address (Sept. 7, 1809)
1. Every person has the right of private judgment (i.e., the right and responsibility to interpret Scripture apart from human authority)
2. The Scriptures will be the sole authority; no human creeds or inventions.
3. The sectarian spirit is evil; bitter jarrings and janglings of party spirit, clashing human opinions should be at rest; restore unity and peace.
4. The Bible alone for our rule; the Holy Spirit for our teacher of truth; and Christ alone as our salvation.

D. Duane Cummins, The Disciples (Chalice, 2009), 45.

Alexander Campbell

There is a distance which is properly called the speaking distance, or the hearing distance, beyond which the voice reaches not, and the ear hears not. To hear another, we must come within that circle which the voice audibly fills. Now we may with propriety say, that as it respects God, there is an understanding distance. All beyond that distance cannot understand God; all within it can easily understand him in all matters of piety and morality. God himself is the centre of that circle, and humility is its circumference. The wisdom of God is as evident in adapting the light of the Sun of Righteousness to our spiritual vision, as in adjusting the light of day to our eyes. The light reaches us without an effort of our own; but we must open our eyes; and if our eyes be sound, we enjoy the natural light of heaven. There is a sound eye in reference to spiritual, as well as in reference to material light. Now, while the philological principles and rules of interpretation enable many men to be skilful in biblical criticism, and in the interpretation of words and sentences, who neither perceive nor admire the things represented by those words, the sound eye contemplates the things themselves, and is ravished with the spiritual and divine scenes which the Bible unfolds.

Alexander Campbell, “The Bible-Principles of Interpretation,” Millennial Harbinger 3 (January, 1846).

Alexander Campbell

The whole Christian religion, in its facts, its precepts, its promises, its doctrine, its institutions, is presented to the world in a written record. The writings of Prophets and Apostles contain all the divine and supernatural knowledge in the world. Now, unless these sacred writings can be certainly interpreted, the Christian religion never can be certainly understood. Every argument that demonstrates the necessity of such a written document as the Bible, equally demonstrates the necessity of fixed and certain principles or rules of interpretation: for without the latter, the former is of no value whatever to the world. All the differences in religious faith, opinion, and sentiment, amongst those who acknowledge the Bible, are occasioned by false principles of interpretation, or by a misapplication of the true principles. There is no law, nor standard,--literary, moral, or religious, that can coerce human thought or action, by only promulging or acknowledging it. If a law can effect any thing, our actions must be conformed to it. Were all students of the Bible taught to apply the same rules of interpretation to its pages, there would be a greater uniformity in opinion and sentiment than ever resulted from the simple adoption of any written creed.

Alexander Campbell, “The Bible-Principles of Interpretation,” Millennial Harbinger 3 (January, 1846).

Alexander Campbell

God has spoken by men, to men, for men. The language of the Bible is, then, human language. It is, therefore, to be examined by the same rules which are applicable to the language of any other book, and to be understood according to the true and proper meaning of the words, in their current acceptation, at the times and in the places in which they were originally written or translated. If we have a revelation from God in human language, the words of that volume must be intelligible by the common usage of language; they must be precise and determinate in signification, and that signification must be philologically ascertained--that is, as the words and sentences of other books are ascertained, by the use of the dictionary and grammar. Were it otherwise, and did men require a new dictionary and grammar to understand the Book of God,--then, without that divine dictionary and grammar, we could have no revelation from God; or a revelation that needs to be revealed is no revelation at all. Again, if any special rules are to be sought for the interpretation of the sacred writings, unless these rules have been given in the volume, as a part of the revelation, and are of divine authority;--without such rules, the Book is sealed; and I know of no greater abuse of language than to call a sealed book a Revelation. But the fact that God has clothed his communications in human language, and that he has spoken by men, to men, in their own language, is decisive evidence that he is to be understood as one man conversing with another. Righteousness, or what we sometimes call honesty, requires this; for unless he first made a special stipulation when he began to speak, his words were, in all candor, to be taken at the current value; for he that would contract with a man for any thing, stipulating his contract in the currency of the country, without any explanation, and should afterwards intimate that a Dollar with him meant only three Franks, would be regarded as a dishonest and unjust man. And shall we impute to the God of truth and justice what would blast the reputation of a fellow-citizen at the tribunal of political justice and public opinion!

Alexander Campbell, “The Bible-Principles of Interpretation,” Millennial Harbinger 3 (January, 1846).

Inductive Hermeneutics

The following list points out some of the difficulties that have been noted in the methodology of inductive hermeneutics: 1) It tends to dismiss poetic and literary aspects of the Bible. 2) It ignores the fact that culture and background play a role in understanding. 3) It addresses the language of the head but not of the heart. 4) It tends to equate spirituality with a correct intellectual understanding of the text. 5) It makes correct biblical understanding dependent on the latest scientific methodology.

David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 18.

Inductive Hermeneutics

Methodological Common Sense…is connected with the American exaltation of Francis Bacon. It is the assertion that truths about consciousness, the world, or religion must be built by a strict induction from irreducible facts of experience…This aspect of the Common Sense Tradition, which contributed its share to the general scientism of nineteenth-century American intellectual life, played an unusually large role in evangelical thought. Early in the nineteenth century, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Disciples, and Episcopalians, in journals ranging from Bibliotheca Sacra to The New Englander, asserted generally, as Presbyterian James W. Alexander put it specifically, “that the theologian should proceed in his investigation precisely as the chemist or botanist proceeds…[This] is the method which bears the name of Bacon.

Mark Noll in David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 13-14.

Inductive Hermeneutics

Appeal to the understanding of the common populace found particular resonance in the religious life of America. It addressed several topical issues of the time, including the proclamation of certainty among religious confusion, a confidence in the ordinary mind to understand God’s word, a return to biblical language for clarity, and an equalizing factor between the clergy and the laity. That pious individuals could upon their Bibles for themselves and understand it without the intercessory services of the clergy was a revolutionary idea in tune with the early American ethos. Echoing the rhetoric of the American Constitution, Alexander Campbell, among many others, called for the “inalienable right of all laymen to examine the sacred writings for themselves.”

David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 10.

Inductive Hermeneutics

During the 1800’s inductive hermeneutics was seen by some as the solution to the religious division of the day. This diversity claimed to have the Bible as its origin but manifested itself in fractured and often opposing claims originating from the one source. This was illustrated by John Winebrenner’s book published in 1848 entitled History of All the Religious Denominations in the United States. John W. Nevin (1803-1886), noted Lutheran theologian and an associate of Philip Schaff (1819-1893), upon reviewing the book noted that most of the groups had one principle in common, that being “no creed but the Bible.” This one statement was a fundamental ideal for a number of different denominations in early America. How could so much religious division arise from this one book? The cure, according to some, was the scientific method of inductive Bible study.

David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 6-7.

Restoration Movement Hermeneutics

Now to apply to one individual what is said to all individuals and classes of individuals, would, methinks, appear egregious folly. And would it not be as absurd to say, that every man is obliged to practice every duty and religious precept enjoined in the Bible. Might we not as reasonable say, that every man must be at once a Patriarch, a Jew, and a Christian; a magistrate, a subject, a father, a child, a master, a servant, etc. And certainly, it is as inconsistent to say, that Christians should equally regard and obey the Old and New Testament.

Alexander Campbell in the "Sermon on the Law" (Sept. 1, 1816)

Restoration Movement Hermeneutics

The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.

Thomas Campbell in “Declaration and Address”

Restoration Movement Hermeneutics

The scriptures admit of being studied and expounded upon the principles of the inductive method; and that, when thus interpreted, they speak to us in a voice as certain and unmistakable as the language of nature heard in the experiments and observations of science.

J.S. Lamar, The Organon of Scripture (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1860), 176.

Restoration Movement Hermeneutics

There is a law written on every human heart, which is the foundation of both law and prophets, under which both angels and men exist; whose obligation is universal and eternal. It is inscribed more or less distinctly on every heathen’s heart. It is sometimes called the law of nature, but more correctly called by the apostle, conscience.

Alexander Campbell in the “Sermon on the Law” (Sept. 1, 1816)