Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The ability to give of our means is a “grace” that God has provided us (2 Cor. 8:7). Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). That is true for several reasons. The person who receives is obviously in need. He has suffered want and need. In contrast, the person who gives has been prospered. Furthermore, the person who receives may feel humiliated by his circumstances, in spite of every effort on the part of those who help him not to make him feel that way. We can easily see the truth in what Jesus spoke. Consequently, to be able to give is a grace to us from God. Let us notice some principles that should govern our giving:

1. We should first give ourselves. The Apostle Paul commended the Macedonians for their generous giving in spite of their deep poverty. He explained why they were so sacrificial in giving by saying, “And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God” (2 Cor. 8:5). Good givers are so generous and charitable because they first commit themselves to the Lord. Men like the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19:16-22 can never be generous givers because they love their wealth more than they love the Lord.

2. We should give as we are prospered. Paul wrote, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). As my prosperity increases, so should my giving. Some men who receive regular increases in salary never increase their giving. Some couples learned to give $10 a week many years ago, but even though their salary has been increased significantly since then, they still give their $10 a week. As our prosperity increases, so should our giving.

3. Our giving should be planned and purposed giving. Paul wrote, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). A person cannot give like the Bible directs if he does not plan his giving. He who waits until the collection basket is being passed to decide how much to give has not “purposed in his heart.”

3. We should give freely, willingly, and cheerfully. Paul continued, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). Bible giving should be done without compulsion and cheerfully, not begrudging the money that one gives.

I once heard a brother say, “If you can’t give but $1 cheerfully, it would be better to give that cheerfully than to give more and begrudge giving it.” His statement surely emphasizes the need for cheerful giving, but there was more that needed to be said. I responded, “That may be so, but someone who is prospered abundantly and can only give $1 cheerfully, needs to work on the attitude of his heart.” Years have passed and I may not have remembered every word perfectly, but this was the gist of our Bible class discussion. We need to be careful not to excuse ourselves from sacrificial giving by an emphasis on cheerful giving. The two are not contradictory to each other. Both are principles about giving that a Christian needs to learn.

4. We should give sacrificially. The poor widow who gave two mites displays the spirit of sacrificial giving. The text records:

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had (Luke 21:1-4).

Most all of us more nearly resemble the rich who gave from their abundance than the poor widow who gave of her necessity.

5. We should give bountifully. Paul wrote, “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6). As Christians we should be trying to give just as much as we can afford. The reason for this is revealed: our giving is compared to planting seed (sowing). The more seed that is planted, the more grain will be harvested. The Indiana farmers do not begrudge planting seed. They plant the seed close together and pour on the fertilize; they know that the more seed that is planted means more bushels of corn that will be reaped.

A tight-fisted giver has lost his perspective of the true values of life. While clinging to his material possessions, he is not generous with the Lord and his work. Therefore, he gives sparingly, using what he has been prospered by the grace of God for his selfish pleasures. By so doing, he values the things that money can provide in this world over the things that our giving provides for us spiritually (here and hereafter).

6. We should give regularly. Paul said, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). As regularly as a man is prospered he should give. The collection is to be taken on the first day of the week. The beauty of the Lord’s plan can be seen in the following examples. Look at the chart below and see the beauty of God’s plan.

Amount Given Amount Given @ 52 weeks

Per Week per year for 50 years

$ 10 $26,000

$ 20 $52,000

$ 30 $78,000

$ 40 $104,000

$ 50 $130,000

$100 $260,000

Few of us would ever be able and willing to write a check for $26,000 to the Lord’s work. By doing the Lord’s will, many of us will give significantly more than that over a lifetime. The next time you read of some benevolent philanthropist who donates $100,000 to higher education, remember that you very well may do that and more by your regular contributions to the Lord’s work. The Lord’s plan will work. Men who turn to bingo, casino nights, church owned businesses, and other forms of generating income to raise funds for the church have lost faith in God’s plan.

Conclusion

Perhaps this is a good time for you to examine how well you are doing in giving to support the Lord’s work. Don’t wait until the collection basket is passed on Lord’s day. If you need to make some changes in how you spend your money in order to support the Lord’s work, begin to make those changes. You will never regret what you contribute to the Lord’s work.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 2
November 3, 1994

By Dick Blackford

There must be a bunch of fellows who are preaching baptism and the church but are not preaching Christ. I would like to know who they are. I will accept a collect call from anyone who will tell me who did it and when and where it was done.

“Preach Christ, not baptism or the church” is the cry and feeling of those who are self-designated as “change agents” in the church, and their sympathizers. This comes from those who don’t want the church or gospel preachers to be militant and have grown soft and apologetic for the truth. It sounds noble”Preach The Man, Not The Plan.” How does any man who claims to be a preacher of the gospel go about preaching baptism or the church without preaching Christ?

“Preach Christ, Not Baptism”

Notice the implication. If you preach baptism you are not preaching Christ; If you preach Christ you do not preach baptism. It is “either/ or.” Is someone’s slip showing? To preach Christ is not merely to stand before an audience and shout the name of Christ. It is to preach what he did and said. The only place we can learn that is from the New Testament which is the sum total of God’s revelation of what Jesus did and said.

To preach Christ without preaching baptism is to leave off both ends of the story. Any man who preaches Christ will have baptism at both the beginning and end of his sermon. Beginning with Christ’s ministry the first public act he did was to be baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt.3:15-17). I could not even be-gin to preach Christ without talking about baptism. The last words re-corded from the lips of Jesus were in the Great Commission. In it he said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” and, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mk.16:16; Matt.28:19). I could not introduce my subject or end my sermon. If I am going to preach Christ I will have baptism at both the beginning and the end!

Preaching Christ would involve telling of some incidents that occurred in his life. One of the most significant ones was when he was approached by a ruler of the Jews. He told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” (Jn.3:3-5). Scholars from varied denominational backgrounds have agreed that Jesus had reference to baptism. So, once begun, I would not be able to continue my sermon for long without talking about baptism.

Since baptism is an act of obedience that comes as a result of loving Christ (Jn.14:15; 15:14; 1 Jn.5:3), isn’t it important to preach what it means to love Christ? Demanding that we “preach Christ, not baptism” would be similar to saying “preach Christ, not obedience.” However, Christ is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb.5:9). Imagine not preaching that! Further, Christ is going to “render vengeance on those who obey not the gospel” (2 Thess. 1 :7-9). What will happen to the man whose preacher would not preach this message? And what will happen to the preacher? “Both (the leader and the follower) shall fall into the ditch” (Matt.15:14).

There is something about the gospel that requires obedience to keep from going to hell. To preach Christ without telling what he did and said about man’s salvation is to take the power out of the gospel (Rom.1:16). To preach Christ without preaching his plan of salvation is to refuse to tell a lost soul the very thing that will determine his eternal destiny. Why would anyone want to do that?

Do not misunderstand. Preaching Christ is not merely preaching on one thing he did or said. It involves preaching his love, grace, sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension. It is preaching on heaven and hell. It includes teaching what he and his apostles taught about how to live. It means to proclaim the whole counsel of God. We should not be telling anyone not to preach anything taught by Christ and the apostles. Whenever we are preaching to lost people why should we not also preach baptism? It doesn’t make sense to tell people to “accept Christ,” but then not tell them what is involved in doing that.

Preach Christ, Not The Church

Some belittle the church by saying such things as, “the church doesn’t save you”; “you can be just as good a Christian out of the church as you can in it”; “you don’t have to go to church,” etc. Christ loved the church enough to die for her!! Be careful that you don’t insult him by what you say about his bride, the church!

Some are saying, “Tell us about the blood he shed but don’t tell us what he purchased with it”  the church (Acts 20:28).

They are saying, “Preach Christ as Savior but don’t tell us what he is going to save”  the church (Eph.1:22,23; 5:23).

They are saying, “Tell us about the bridegroom, but don’t tell us about his bride” the church (Eph.5:22-33).

They are saying, “Tell us about the king but don’t tell us about his kingdom over which he reigns”  the church (Matt.16:18,19; Con :13; Mk.9:1). How does one do this?

They are saying, “Tell us about the Captain of our salvation” (Heb.2: 10) but don’t tell us about his army  the church.

They are saying, “Tell us about his being the Head, never mind what he is Head of “ the church (Eph.1:22,23).

They are saying, “Tell us about his Father, but we don’t want to hear about his family”  the church (Eph.3:15; 1 Tim.3: 15).

A Necessary Inference

When Philip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch, he asked to be baptized (Acts 8:35,36). What is there about “preaching Jesus” that would make him want to be baptized? He had been to Jerusalem to worship, but there was nothing in Judaism that would cause him to ask this question. He was reading from Isaiah 53, but there is nothing there about baptism. Are we to believe he randomly picked a question out of the air that had nothing to do with what Philip was preaching? Could it involve preaching what Jesus did and said about baptism? This is nothing short of a necessary implication in the Scriptures.

In the Philippian jailer’s case Paul “spake the word of the Lord unto him” (Acts 16:32). In the next verse he was baptized. Was there anything in his pagan background that would motivate him to do such a thing in the middle of the night  or at all? No. We have to make another necessary inference. When we use the word “necessary” that means it could not have been any other way. Do you see why some who advocate “preach Jesus, not baptism or the church” also object to necessary inference as a means of ascertaining the meaning of Scripture?! They don’t like what it proves. Again, their slip is showing. It is hard not to say they have a motive. In fact, I am going to say it. These men have admitted they are “change agents” out to change the church. To preach Christ without preaching baptism or the church is to preach “another gospel” (Gal :6-9).

The reason we necessarily infer is because the Scriptures necessarily imply.

Conclusion

What would be the point and purpose of preaching Christ but omitting what Christ and the apostles taught about baptism and the church? Could the devil be any happier with such a message? It sounds like a sinister plot to overthrow the salvation of men (2 Tim.2:17,18). My friend, if you are one who has advocated this, or are practicing this, or has felt this is what we should do, then please, quickly, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee” (Act 8:22).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 21, p. 1
November 3, 1994

By Dennis L. Scroggins

A lecture series dealing with the subject of the Bible Fellowship (Do Not Remove the Ancient Landmark, Proverbs 22:28), was held on August 25-27, 1994, in Austin, Texas at the faithful church meeting in South Austin.

We are pleased to report the positive way in which the subject matter was presented by each scheduled speaker, their apt handling of the assigned lessons, and the good response by the large number of people who attended each session was uplifting to all. The comments by visitors ranged from. “Why hasn’t anyone put together anything like this before?” to “I really didn’t understand the magnitude of the problems facing local churches in regard to this subject until I heard all the different facets summed up in one lecture series.”

A Methodist was invited to come and hear the series on fellowship. He responded with the comment that if the lessons were just going to be another series on the wonderful attributes of the “Social Gospel” he wasn’t interested in coming. He was assured that the lessons would be Bible centered in every aspect. He came to the Thursday night lesson and stayed to hear the panel discussion that followed which dealt with questions and answers from the audience. Several members of liberal churches of Christ in the Austin area came to each session. We sent an invitation to every kind of religious group throughout the Austin area in the hope of reaching them through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our intent in holding this type of lecture series with a concentration on the Bible subject of Fellowship was initiated for three reasons:

1. The church meeting in South Austin had come under attack by members of other so-called faithful churches of Christ in our area in which the false doctrine of “Receive ye . . . on the basis of the individual’s conscience, regard-less of their repentance or not!” was being taught privately through phone calls and letters.

2. Different religious groups in the Austin area were being torn apart by the “message of tolerance” which was being preached in connection with the receiving of homosexuals into the local fellowship of their churches. We viewed this as a great opportunity to reach those in the different religious groups who stand opposed to the unrepentant homosexual being accepted into the fellow-ship of their local churches.

3. We believe that the Bible topic of Fellowship affects every aspect of the local church both in its purity and in its faithfulness to Jesus Christ the Head (Eph. 5:23-27). It was our intent to ground the members of the church meeting in South Austin in the truth of God’s word concerning the Bible subject of Fellowship.

Tom Roberts began the series with a clear and precise lesson dealing first with the world’s concept of fellowship (let us go along to get along), secondly the denominational concept of fellowship (fun and frolic, social gospel), and concluded with some of the concepts of our own. Brethren have accepted into the fellowship of a local church all kinds of unrepented sinners based on their misguided conclusions (drawn from Romans the fourteenth chapter).

Larry Hafley continued the next night with the subject of “Romans 14: Fellowship Redefined?” He was straight forward in reinforcing the biblical principle of fellowship based on objective truth found in God’s word.

Larry presented the “Elastic Gospel” concept which he pointed out to have been embraced by our own brethren who are calling for more tolerance in regard to those who continue in sin. Larry pointed out the destructive force of this “attitude of compromise” connected with the twisting of the Scriptures in Romans 14. He pressed the point of its “leavening power” which was led to the ruin and loss of many souls.

On Saturday morning, August 27th, Harry Osborne dealt with the false arguments advanced by some brethren who condemn exposing error that has been advanced by individuals outside the local church. Harry’s lesson was entitled “Fellowship, Is It Decided by the Local Church?” No doubt was left in the minds of those who were listening to this lesson that Harry was deeply concerned about any local church that would allow false teachers and their teachings to go unchallenged. He dealt with the false premise that the marking of a false teacher (who is not a member at that local church) in accordance with Romans 16:17,18; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:1-4, would some-how violate the local autonomy of that church.

Ron Halbrook continued that morning with “Fellow-ship, As Defined by God.” Ron outlined from 1 John 1:1-7, the elements of fellowship as prescribed by the word of God. Ron’s lesson exemplified the attitudes Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 11:3. Ron spoke in the “simplicity of truth” so all would realize that the subject of fellowship with all its elements can be clearly known, understood, and widely accepted even if certain ones charge that the subject of Fellowship is too controversial to be addressed in an effective manner.

Jerry Fite concluded the lecture series that afternoon with the timely lesson. “Fellowship: Who shall Be the Watchdogs?” Jerry delivered a lesson that every preacher should hear concerning the work of an evangelist. He pointed out to the listening audience our individual responsibility to be on guard for the souls of men and women, and the terrible consequences of not watching. It was at the conclusion of Jerry’s lesson that a brother in Christ came forward confessing the sin of not watching out for the spiritual welfare of his family. We wept, rejoiced, and prayed with this brother who realized the far reaching effects of not taking a spiritual lead in one’s family and a strong stand for the truth. The next day, on Sunday morning another Brother in Christ came forward and confessed the sin of buying lottery tickets. It was uplifting to see the good results of these kinds of sermons that declare the whole counsel of God.

We also saw another result of these faithful preacher’s strong and sound teachings, visitors from other faithful congregations that expressed a desire for this same lecture series to be presented at the local congregation expressed a desire for this same lecture series to be presented at the local congregation where they are members. We believe this to be a direct result of the clear call to holiness contained in each of the lessons that were presented during the three days. The speakers’ positive attitude toward the subject of Bible fellowship should lead those who would honestly investigate the lessons presented in this series to give thanks for the far reaching effects it will have in the future for that which is good in the sight of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 9-10
October 20, 1994

By Chris Reeves

(Note: This material was taken from a larger outline entitled Out With the Old and In With the New: The Cry of the New Hermeneutic by the same author. This thirty page outline has many useful quotes and references about the New Hermeneutic, a refutation of each of the main points of the New Hermeneutic and a large bibliography. This outline can be ordered from the Guardian of Truth Bookstore.)

Like the Athenians of Paul’s day, many religious people throughout time, and some Christians recently, have been fascinated “to tell or hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21), as if that new thing were better or truer than the old things. For example, from the 3rd through the 6th centuries A.D., there was NeoPlatonism. Later among the denominations there have been such movements as New Divinity, NeoThomism, NeoOrthodoxy, NeoPentecostalism, NeoEvangelicalism, New Morality (Situation Ethics) and New Age. In my lifetime there have been several new religious trends among certain brethren such as NeoCalvinism, the New Unity Movement, and now, the New Hermeneutic.

“New” is not wrong if it comes as a result of God’s planning (Rom.6:4; 2 Cor.5:17; Heb. 8:8; Rev. 21:1,2). There is a time and place for new things in God’s plan. “New” is wrong, however, if it comes as a result of man’s planning. Someone has said, “If it is new, it is not true. If it is true, it is not new.” The apostle Paul said the same thing in other words long ago (Gal.1:610). “Old” is not always bad as some brethren today would have us believe, especially if the “old” is the “old paths” of God’s word (Jer.6:16).

Background to the New Hermeneutic Issue

The New Hermeneutic (hereafter, “NH”) that is discussed in this article is the NH advanced by some of our brethren in churches of Christ. There is another NH among the denominations. There are, however, similarities between the two, especially in the area of existential thought. The NH problem is prominent among the “institutional” churches of Christ, but it has affected some “non-institutional” churches as well (for example, Charles Holt’s group and The Examiner); and for this reason we need to learn about it and combat it.

Certain “institutional” brethren (preachers, and Bible professors at some schools operated by brethren) who claim that they are part of a “Scholarship Movement,” began calling for a NH in the late 1980s, and they continue that call at the present. They continue the process of tearing down the “Old Hermeneutic” – a process which began in the late 1960s with Thomas H. Olbricht, Restoration Quarterly, and Mission Journal. Much of the writing of these brethren has parroted the earlier works of Olbricht (Bible professor at Pepperdine University), and the more recent works of C. Leonard Allen (Bible professor at Abilene Christian University). According to the so called “Scholarship Movement,” our current hermeneutic (the “Old Hermeneutic” of command, example, and necessary inference) must be abandoned and replaced with a NH because they claim our current hermeneutic is a manmade tradition taken from the 19th century. The NH advocates have not reached a consensus as to what the NH ought to be, but they are all in agreement that the “Old Hermeneutic” must go. “Out with the old and in with the new” is the cry of the NH.

A brief critique of the NH position is in order here. First, the NH advocates make several presuppositions; their main presupposition being the dating of what they call the “Old Hermeneutic.” They assume that the “Old Hermeneutic” is a manmade tradition given to us by Alexander Campbell that dates back to the last century. This date, however, is far too late. The use of command, example and necessary inference to establish Bible authority was not given to us by Alexander Campbell in the 19th century, but by Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists in the 1st century. What the NH advocates want to abandon are in fact principles that are clearly established in Scripture and were used by Jesus and the 1st century church. Second, the principles of inductive reasoning that we use to interpret the Scriptures were not given to us by Alexander Campbell as the NH advocates assume, but by God.

Why a New Hermeneutic?

Some of our brethren have a “hidden agenda.” They have developed a NH so they don’t have to be limited in their religious practices. They have changed their hermeneutic in order to support their change in practice.

For example, some of our brethren want all marriages and divorces to be right and they allow polygamy. They want “grace only salvation.” They believe baptism to be nonessential for salvation and baptism can include sprinkling and pouring. They want the unimmersed to be recognized as “Christians.” They want to have instrumental music, women preachers and women elders. They want a more emotional worship service in the assembly with “spontaneous” worship and celebration (this includes solos and choirs, “special music,” written prayers, shouting, dancing, applause, cheering, personal testimonials or “witnessing,” “sin confessing,” “children’s church” or “junior worship,” and theatrical performances). They allow only one elder over a local church. They want to leave off the practice of taking the Lord’s supper every Sunday. They want to change the elements of the Lord’s supper from the fruit of the vine and unleavened bread to something else. They want to use the local church treasury to support literacy programs, soup kitchens, drug rehabilitation programs, homes for the homeless and prison outreach programs. They want to stop identifying the church of God with the kingdom of God; the church is now, the kingdom is yet future, they say. Other NH brethren defend homosexuality, promote the A.D. 70 theory (Jesus’ second coming was in A.D. 70), and deny that the wicked will suffer endless torment in a place called Hell.

Some of the NH brethren want unity and fellowship with other religious bodies (unity with all professing “Christians” or “believers” in the denominations). Others want to meet what they call the needs and problems of Christians in the 20th century. They also want to prepare the church to meet the so called needs and problems of Christians in the 21st century. These needs and problems are in reality wants, and their NH allows them to have what they want. “Will worship” (Col. 2:23), or worshipping the way you want, is running rampant among the NH brethren. They want change; not just in the area of expediencies, but change in what the Bible teaches.

The NH is soul damning. It needs to be exposed, rebuked and rejected! The NH is simply old modernism. It undermines Bible authority, making the Bible little more than a book of suggestions. More and more members of the church are losing their confidence in the reliability, accuracy and authority of the Bible. A few brethren today now hold to the theory of Theistic Evolution, the Documentary Hypothesis, and various types of Form Criticism. The virgin birth of Christ is even questioned by some.

Rush Limbaugh said, “Any time you see the adjective `new’ employed – be it in politics, religion, or commerce – assume that the label is mere smoke and mirrors, calculated to obscure the fact that there is nothing `new’ about what is being described. Rather, it is the same old stuff simply repackaged” (See, I Told You So, 34). (This quote was brought to my attention by Forrest D. Moyer, `New’ – But the Same Old Stuff,” Gospel Anchor, March,1994.) What Rush Limbaugh said about politics, religion and commerce is certainly true about what is talking place among some churches of Christ. We are hearing a lot these days about a “new” hermeneutic. But there is nothing “new” about the NH. The NH is simply the old rejection of divine authority contained in the Scriptures repackaged in order to introduce what man wants today. The NH is no more than a smoke screen for unauthorized practices.

Hermeneutics Defined

Our English word “hermeneutics” means “the science of interpretation” (Webster, 680). According to D.R. Dungan, hermeneutics “is derived from the Greek Hermes, the messenger of the gods and the interpreter of Jupiter .. . Sacred hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures” (1). Biblical hermeneutics, therefore, is the process of interpreting the Scriptures in such a way as to find the original meaning of the text. The goal of hermeneutics is to remove the distance or differences between the author (of Bible times) and the reader (in the 20th century). G.H. Schodde said, “The moment the Bible student has in his own mind what was in the mind of the author or authors of Biblical books when these were written, he has interpreted the thought of Scripture” (1489). Biblical hermeneutics deals with the way we interpret (understand) and apply the Scripture. What, then, is the NH? A new method of interpreting and applying the Scriptures. What the new method or methods should be has not been agreed upon by the NH advocates.

What Is the Issue Over Hermeneutics?

The issue is not “Do we need a hermeneutic?” We know that the Scriptures must be interpreted. God communicated his will to us in words (Heb. 1:12; 1 Cor. 2:12f; Eph. 3:1 f). The understanding of these words is possible only by the interpretation of those words. Interpreting the Scriptures is a Bible practice (Neh. 8:8; Lk. 4:1721; Matt. 9:13; Lk. 24:1335,44f; Acts 8:30f). Interpreting the Scriptures is necessary for the understanding of the Scriptures, and the understanding of the Scriptures is necessary for our salvation.

The issue is “Which hermeneutic will we use?” The one set forth by Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists, or the various ones set forth by some of our brethren in recent years? Instead of looking to a so called “Restoration Movement Hermeneutic” (another name for the “Old Hermeneutic”) or a “New Hermeneutic” for an answer, why not let the NT solve the issue? What does the Bible say concerning the proper interpretation of Scripture? Let the NT determine how we ought to interpret the Scriptures.

Some Practices That Must Be Abandoned

According the New Hermeneutic Advocates

Since the “Old Hermeneutic” is believed by the NH advocates to be a faulty, manmade tradition of the 19th century, they feel it must be abandoned. What are some of’ the practices that we must leave behind according to the NH position?

I. Using the NT as a pattern or blueprint. According to some NH advocates the NT is not a pattern or blueprint that must be followed. C. Leonard Allen writes:

First, there is the simple and observable fact that, throughout Churches of Christ, many people are questioning and sometimes rejecting the traditional doctrinal system that for several generations gave Churches of Christ their distinctive identity. Acts and the Epistles as architectural “blueprint,” as a rigid “pattern,” as a collection of case law – these images and the interpretive method they support are steadily declining (The Cruciform Church, 19).

2. Establishing Bible authority by the use of apostolic examples or necessary inference. According to some NH advocates, the NT does not teach us by apostolic examples or necessary inferences. Christ alone is our model for teaching. Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris write:

Our hermeneutic is therefore theological and Christocentric. . . Our beginning point is the general principle of Christ centeredness, Christ centricity (The Second Incarnation, 28). Remember that everything about the church must pass the “Jesus test” to be trustworthy … (Ibid., 232).

3. Making the silence of God prohibitive. According to some NH advocates, when God is silent, that does not mean we cannot act, it means we can go ahead and do what we want. Woody Woodrow writes:

If the thesis of this paper is correct, namely, that the New Testament is not an exclusive pattern, or does not contain an exhaustive number of ways one may worship and serve God, then items which are not mentioned in this regard (expressions about which the Scripture is “silent”) are not necessarily excluded. . . In short, the silence of Scripture has no different function from silence in normal human discourse and should not be assigned prohibitive force solely on the basis of a presupposed exhaustive blueprint (The Silence of the Scriptures and Restoration Movement, 3839).

Possibly the most widely accepted view among certain frontrunners in Dallas, Fort Worth, Abilene, Nashville, San Antonio, and Searcy is that the scripture is not a constitution or code book, as envisioned by the old hermeneutic, but is a love letter from God. There is much merit in both the rejection of the former model, and the parameters of the new (Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point, 6).

 4. Using the NT as a book of case law. According to some NH advocates we should not view the NT as a book of case law, or a constitution, but rather as a collection of “love letters.” Thomas H. Olbricht said:

5. Using reason and logic (or “inductive reasoning”) when trying to learn God’s will. According to some NH advocates, we are not to use deductive reasoning and logic to learn God’s will (that is, we are not to look for Bible “facts”) because the use of such is a manmade tradition which came to us from the Age of Enlightenment and the Restoration preachers. C. Leonard Allen writes:

The Enlightenment also exerted a profound influence on our understanding of the Bible. Many members of Churches of Christ today, while certainly viewing the Bible as divinely inspired, still think the Bible essentially a book of good common sense or even sound psychological theory. . . What is the source for this peculiar understanding of the Bible? Again, we turn to the early age of Enlightenment. Our forefathers in the faith – men like Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, Moses Lard, and J.W. McGarvey – adopted a way of reading the Bible called the “inductive method” … The Bible in this view, was a grand collection of individual “facts” . . . With such a method, its proponents thought, the Bible required little interpretation. One simply gathered and set forth the “facts” … This way of reading the Bible became a powerful tradition among Churches of Christ … Today many in Churches of Christ have moved away from this way of reading the Bible (The Worldly Church, 6063).

6. Claiming to know the truth. According to some NH advocates we should not claim to know the truth. Richard T. Hughes said:

… truth in its fullness and wholeness lies always beyond the grasp of the human mind. The search for truth, therefore, is a continuous, never-ending search, and becomes the urgent task of each new generation. Faith, therefore, is not knowledge at all, but rather trust in God in spite of our lack of knowledge. . . The word of God … was far too large to be encapsulated by the wisdom of men (The Idea of a Christian University, 67; quoted by H.A. Dobbs, “What’s Wrong? – Part 4,” Firm Foundation, April, 1991).

New Hermeneutic Proposals

Let us turn our attention now to some of the many NH proposals that have been made in recent years. NH advocates are in agreement that the “Old Hermeneutic” must go, but they have not reached a consensus as to what is to be offered in its place. Thomas Olbricht said, “The proposals by scholars are legion, but no consensus has emerged” (Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point, 7). Most of the NH proposals that have been made in recent years have come from the annual Christian Scholars Conference hosted by universities operated by our brethren. NH proposals have also been made by C. Leonard Allen in The Cruciform Church, and Rubel Shelly and Randall J. Harris in The Second Incarnation. Various ones writing in Restoration Quarterly, Image and Wineskins have also made NH proposals in recent years. The NH proposals, and there are many, arise from what some scholars feel is needed among the brotherhood. The NH proposals are supposed to meet these needs. What are some of the needs and proposals of the NH advocates?

1.The need for a greater focus on God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to focus on God, Christ and Holy Spirit like we should do. Thomas H. Olbricht said:

The command example necessary inference hermeneutic focuses on the rules (that is, rules of logic), and the results, rather than on the actions of God. It gets the cart before the horse. We are committed to the book of God, but not for its own sake, but to the God of the book. The old hermeneutic may help us discover what Christ did, or what we should do in the concrete. But why not begin with the actions of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. . . The action of God through Christ and the Holy Spirit is the center of the Scriptures. . . A Biblical hermeneutic therefore starts from God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and ends up by setting forth guidelines by which scripture provides humankind with the manner of acting within specific contexts so as to be Godlike (Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point, 1112).

2. The need to view Scripture as narrative. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to view Scripture as narrative as we should do. Michael Casey said:

Narrative is also an important literary form found in scripture. It occurs more often than commands. As the most prominent literary form of scripture, it then should be appropriate to propose the metaphor of scripture is story and the Church as a story formed community as the basis of a new hermeneutic for the restoration tradition (Scripture As Narrative and The Church A Story Form Community: A Proposal For a New Restoration Hermeneutic, 15).

3. The need to maintain our theological identity. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to focus on our theological identity, namely the Lord’s supper, as we should do. Allan J. McNicol said:

In this paper we have concentrated on . . . the Lord’s Supper. We have shown how Paul used the tradition about it operative in the early church as a hermeneutical tool to address problems in the local church. We should do the same (Theological Method On the Bible Among Churches of Christ: A Proposal, 2122).

4. The need to read the Bible like Jesus. According to some NH advocates the “Old Hermeneutic” does not cause us to read the Bible like Jesus as we should do. Gary Collier said:

So, not only is Jesus the authoritative interpreter for his church, his church is to follow his lead! … Jesus draws us to interpret the instructions of God in the brighter light of the desires of God’s heart: justice, mercy, faith, righteousness, love. The argument here is not that Jesus provides us with a new (or old) method of interpretation, but rather a perspective from which to view people in relation to God’s law . . . in Matt.12:114, Jesus shows that the real issue of Biblical hermeneutics goes beyond mere methods in deciphering a book, to an understanding of the desire of God for people. . . This is the starting point from which we must discuss specific methods (Bringing the Word to Life – Part II: The Scholarship Movement, 2627).

Evaluation of the New Hermeneutic

What about what the NH advocates want to abandon? It is obvious that our NH brethren do the very things they condemn. They practice the same things they want us to abandon. For example, they want us to abandon the NT pattern, apostolic examples, necessary inference, reason and logic, but they use patterns, examples, inferences, reason and logic to build their NH. The NH brethren remind me of the Jews of Paul’s day: “Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” (Rom.2:21) What do the NH advocates offer in return? Many of them are offering pluralism, subjectivism, existentialism, agnosticism, relativism, ecumenism, antinomianism, humanism and traditionalism. “Change” and “freedom” are two words that summarize the beliefs of the NH. What the NH brethren are offering is very attractive to some, but destructive to the soul. They remind me of the false teachers of Paul’s day: “promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption. . .” (2 Pet.2: 19). The NH offers a “hidden agenda.” Beware of anyone who wants to use the Scriptures in some way other than the way Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists used the Scriptures. Their interest is not so much with a proper use of Scripture, as it is with promoting and defending their current practices. They need to promote their practices in a respectable way in order that the brotherhood won’t be alarmed, so they invent a NH which will give them the sophisticated, Biblical (?) sanction they need. They know that the hermeneutic of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists will not support their current practices, so they have abandoned it for a NH. Let us be content to use the Scriptures in the way Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists used them. We do not need a NH. We need the hermeneutic of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists. Let us not abandon what is clearly established in God’s word. Let us hold fast the pattern of sound words as Paul directed, allow God to teach us the way he wants to teach us (via direct statements, examples, and implications), remain silent when God is silent, obey the law of Christ, reason from the Scriptures as Paul and others did, and let us know the truth and obey the truth.

What about the many NH proposals? While some of what the NH advocates are saying about Bible study is good and worthy of our attention, much of what they are saying about Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) is absolutely false. The NH proposals are not the result of thorough Bible study; rather they are the result of: (1) a reactionary attitude toward certain Bible principles which are clearly established in Scripture; (2) reading the scholarly works of liberal theologians; and (3) an overreaction to certain abuses of Bible study among brethren. The NH proposals sound good to the ear. They contain some Scripture but the Scriptures used are either taken out of context, or singled out and separated from the rest of Scripture to establish a particular point. Who gives these men the authority to have these needs and make these proposals? Are we to accept these needs and proposals just because the men who offer them are church of Christ scholars? No. If these needs and proposals are based upon the text of Scripture then we must accept them; if not, then we must reject them. We are not obligated to accept them just because they are offered by scholars. The NH is simply old modernism. These men cast doubt upon the Scriptures and do not define their terms. They are modernist sin the making, and they have only begun to deny the Scriptures. If a NH is needed today to properly understand and apply God’s message, then everyone who has lived before and died without the NH, died without properly understanding and applying God’s message.

Do we need a so called “Restoration Hermeneutic”? No. Do we need the contemporary NH proposals of the “Scholarship Movement”? No. We need the hermeneutic of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists. I appeal to all brethren to follow the example of Jesus, the apostles and NT evangelists, as they seek to handle accurately the word of truth today.

Works Cited

Allen, C. Leonard. The Cruciform Church. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1990.

. The Worldly Church. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1991.

Casey, Michael. “Scripture As Narrative and the Church a Story Form Community: A Proposal For a New Restoration Hermeneutic.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1989.

Collier, Gary. “Bringing the Word to Life – Part II: The Scholarship Movement.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1988.

Dungan, D.R. Hermeneutics: A Textbook. Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Co., n.d.

Hughes, Richard T. “The Idea of a Christian University.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1986.

Limbaugh, Rush. See, I Told You So. New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1993.

McNicol, Allan J. “Theological Method on the Bible Among Churches of Christ: A Proposal.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1989.

Olbricht, Thomas H. “Hermeneutics: The Beginning Point.” Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University, 1989.

Schodde, G.H. “Interpretation.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

Shelly, Rubel and Randall J. Harris. The Second Incarnation: A Theology for the 21st Century Church. West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing Co., 1992.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language.

New York, NY: The World Publishing Co., 1963.

Woodrow, Woody. “The Silence of the Scriptures and Restoration Movement.” Restoration Quarterly, Vol.28, No.1, 1986.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 21-25
October 6, 1994