'SELF DESTRUCT' hermeneutics

[Stinker]

Hermeneutics is defined by Merriam Websters Dictionary as; the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)


I do not think that this was the only reason that the Restoration Movement has been temporarily derailed, but it is certainly one of the reasons. The idea that we are to replicate the organization, teaching, and practice of the 1st century church in the 20th century, was injected into the Movement which derailed a grand work. Somehow, this was supposed to be accomplished through proper hermeneutics. If all the churches of the RM all followed this same method of interpretation we would all resemble the church of the 1st century.

What this succeeded in doing was to create a whole new cluster of sects. This has shown that the best we Christians can do today, as far as the church organization, teaching (apart from the plan of salvation), and practice, is to use the New Testament as a general blueprint. Trying to use it as an exact blueprint only succeeded in causing division.

One of the greatest gifts from God through the Restoration Movement was the revealing from the scriptures of the simple plan of salvation. The other gift was the showing through the scriptures, of the weekly obsevance of the Lord's Supper and what it meant and consisted of. Many in the Movement even managed to make that an instrument of division by using the proper hermeneutics in making the 'correct method' of the communion an essential.

We can have the unity that binds if we realize that we cannot replicate the 1st century church....today in the 21st century. The needs do justify the means if it means being able to save people. If the methods and means were available to the 1st century church like they are for us today, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that they would have hesitated in using them?

I have always enjoyed listening to church hymns and other Christian music that is accompanied by instruments, even when I attended anti-Instrumental churches. Some said it was sinful to do so and some said it was not. This is what happens to brethren when churches go by this kind of hermenuetics. It was pure torture.

[Wigglesworth]

This post was very helpful to me and insightful. It sums up what I'm feeling in a nutshell.

I have just been reviewing a book for a friend: Traditions of Men Versus the Word of God by Alvin Jennings. I just started last night and already have written a page of notes on disturbing positions the author takes.

:prayer:

[WesWoodell]

I've read that book - what points does he make that disturb you?

[- DRA -]

Hermeneutics is defined by Merriam Websters Dictionary as; the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

I do not think that this was the only reason that the Restoration Movement has been temporarily derailed, but it is certainly one of the reasons. The idea that we are to replicate the organization, teaching, and practice of the 1st century church in the 20th century, was injected into the Movement which derailed a grand work. Somehow, this was supposed to be accomplished through proper hermeneutics. If all the churches of the RM all followed this same method of interpretation we would all resemble the church of the 1st century.

What this succeeded in doing was to create a whole new cluster of sects. This has shown that the best we Christians can do today, as far as the church organization, teaching (apart from the plan of salvation), and practice, is to use the New Testament as a general blueprint. Trying to use it as an exact blueprint only succeeded in causing division.

One of the greatest gifts from God through the Restoration Movement was the revealing from the scriptures of the simple plan of salvation. The other gift was the showing through the scriptures, of the weekly obsevance of the Lord's Supper and what it meant and consisted of. Many in the Movement even managed to make that an instrument of division by using the proper hermeneutics in making the 'correct method' of the communion an essential.

We can have the unity that binds if we realize that we cannot replicate the 1st century church....today in the 21st century. The needs do justify the means if it means being able to save people. If the methods and means were available to the 1st century church like they are for us today, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that they would have hesitated in using them?

I have always enjoyed listening to church hymns and other Christian music that is accompanied by instruments, even when I attended anti-Instrumental churches. Some said it was sinful to do so and some said it was not. This is what happens to brethren when churches go by this kind of hermenuetics. It was pure torture.

As far as hermeneutics are concerned, I use a two-step approach to interpreting Scripture.
Step 1 (see Nehemiah 8:8) -- Read God's law and gain an understanding of what God says.
Step 2 (see Matthew 4:5-7 & 22:23-33) -- Harmonize your understanding derived from one passage or text of Scripture with your understanding from other relevant Scriptures. If the passages don’t harmonize, additional study must be done to ensure that the understanding derived considers all that the Scriptures say about the particular topic of study.

I don't know about how you feel about some issues, but I have problems with what you seem to be promoting -- that the church today doesn't have to teach, practice the same things, or be organized like the church in first century was. I would be interested to hear how you derive such an understanding from passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 4:11a, Jude 3, and Colossians 3:17.

I would like to hear your idea of exactly which Scriptures give us the "general blueprint” that we are to follow today.

Frankly, I wasn’t aware that the restoration movement in America was responsible for revealing the simple plan of salvation. Wasn’t the plan revealed in the first century e.g. Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:35-39? And, wasn’t it still there when Catholicism and the Reformation came about? All the restoration movement did was to emphasize what the New Testament taught was necessary to be saved.

Does the end justify the means? Personally, I think this issue should be settled with the example in Leviticus 10:1-3. Unless I’m mistaken, God sorta’ cut short the line of reasoning that suggests that the end justifies the means. Nadab and Abihu ended up with fire, but used a different means that God specified. I conclude that the means made a difference when God told them what to do and they chose to do things differently.

I am sorry you have been “tortured” by the issue of instrumental versus non-instrumental music in worship to God. It really is a shame that brethren have divided over the years over this issue. It shouldn’t be this way. Like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, we should be able to look to God’s word and determine what pleases God. I suspect that many brethren have been swayed one way or the other by what they personally enjoy or by what others say about this topic – rather than focusing on what God has said about this matter. Referring back to the example in Leviticus 10:1-3 once again, it does seem to make a difference to God whether or not we pay attention to what He says. In essence, we should be able to look to the New Testament and decide if instrumental music is an option - - remembering the “strange fire” was an option - - just NOT one that God approved of.

[aggie03]

I'm also interested in seeing what these "self-destruct" hermeneutics are...:)

[aggie03]

???

[Jatopian]

what aggie03 said...
btw, aggie03, like your "truth will free us"

[aggie03]

bump...with some more ??? Will we ever hear what those "self destruct hermeneutics" are?

[Jim Woodell]

This post was very helpful to me and insightful. It sums up what I'm feeling in a nutshell.

I have just been reviewing a book for a friend: Traditions of Men Versus the Word of God by Alvin Jennings. I just started last night and already have written a page of notes on disturbing positions the author takes.

:prayer:

Please share those disturbing positions. Perhaps we can all gain from your insights.

[ischus]

bump...with some more ??? Will we ever hear what those "self destruct hermeneutics" are?

I believe the OP descibed the self-destructing hermeneutics as those which are rooted in a modern (scientific) view of scriptures and resulting (in part) in a blueprint-oriented (rulebook) approach to the application of Scripture.

[aggie03]

That doesn't help much with the "self-destruct" part :)

[ischus]

Right. Self-destruction (of the CoC) comes about when the hermeneutic is played out to its logical end. Others have called it an "Impasse" or "Failed Hermeneutical Assumptions."

But I am not the Original poster and I don't know exactly what that individual was thinking.

[aggie03]

How does it come to an impasse?

[ischus]

Basically, the Systematic view of Scripture has resulted not in unity, but in schism after schism. The Hermeneutical Assumptions that the CoC has held onto were such that we were "set up" for failure in a way.

When the most important aspect of one's hermeneutic is highly dependent upon subjective opinions (interpreting the Silence of Scripture) and at the same time the foundational assumption advocates that the bible clearly states a systematic rule for each of these "Silent" issues, the hermeneutic works against itself as long as there can be an alternate interpretation of a given text. The goal of unity was good. The method of achieving it was based on faulty hermeneutics, making it impossible to achieve the goal.

That basically describes what is meant by "Impasse."

[Please do not focus on the fact that the word "subjective" was used. What is meant by subjectve is simply that the interpretation is subject to opinion.]

ischus

[aggie03]

What you have described is no more "self-destruct" than any other method I can think of. Simply because people are willing to follow after what they prefer, does this make the method faulty? Couldn't one argue that the method is sound, but the problem is with individuals?

[ischus]

What you have described is no more "self-destruct" than any other method I can think of. Simply because people are willing to follow after what they prefer, does this make the method faulty? Couldn't one argue that the method is sound, but the problem is with individuals?

Yes, one could argue that. But let's look at the facts. We started out with two things: 1) a Goal of Unity 2) A Hermeneutical method by which to achieve this unity.

So, when there are people who use a certain method to achieve the unity they desire, but instead find themselves in dis-unity, is the problem with the individuals or with the method? I will agree that it is some of both. But, you will have a hard time finding a CoC member (or any RM person) who does not claim a desire for unity.

But what do we say? "I would fellowship with them if they would only...." or "I don't feel comfortable fellowshipping them because they say ____ and ______ about this particular verse." Our hermeneutical model tells us that there is one and only one right way to do everything. It is a Rule, given by God, in his "Constitution" (that is, the New Testament). While we would like to have unity with everyone, we can only have unity with those who come to the same conclusions about what we are to infer from each "necessary inference" in our Constitutional Law book.

So, in the end, we must redefine what the unity is that Jesus prayed for, based on our own criteria for unity: "What is your view on this passage here?" "We know that Jesus prayed for unity...but he of course was praying for everyone to understand and obey each rule--whether clearly stated or inferred--in His System."

Now--please understand--all of this is an historical summary. I am not talking about you and me. I am talking about the history of our hermeneutical method in practice. Something needs to change before all of us are spread so thin that there is nothing left. This is the "impasse."

[Jim Woodell]

So, in the end, we must redefine what the unity is that Jesus prayed for, based on our own criteria for unity: "What is your view on this passage here?" "We know that Jesus prayed for unity...but he of course was praying for everyone to understand and obey each rule--whether clearly stated or inferred--in His System."

Some years ago we heard of a "New Hermeneuitic" being introduced. An approach to Biblical application that did not involve the direct command, approved example or necessary inference. As members of Churches of Christ observed the obvious results of a failing approach to unity many questioned the "Old Hermeneutic."

The question that seems most consistent with scripture is: "How does my interpretation and application of scripture line up with the life and ministry of Jesus?"

What would such an approach do with how folks who have been married and divorced and remarried are responded to by the church? People with addictions, etc., etc.

Another questions is: "Was the Bible really intended to be a "rule book" or is it simply a historical document that sets forth the struggles of those who interacted with God?"

It seems that the basis for unity in the NT was that folks who mutually agreed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God found common ground. That was the single creed of the NT Church.

[ischus]

Ahh, yes...New Hermy stirred the pot quite a bit. Not many knew what it was, but they were sure as heck against it.

I was accused of using the New Hermeneutic once. It was facinating, really. All I did was interpret a scripture in context while teaching a class. Because it was not what one of the people wanted to hear, I got pinned as a "liberal advocate of the New Hermeneutic." It was too funny to get upset over.

[aggie03]

Yes, one could argue that. But let's look at the facts. We started out with two things: 1) a Goal of Unity 2) A Hermeneutical method by which to achieve this unity.

So, when there are people who use a certain method to achieve the unity they desire, but instead find themselves in dis-unity, is the problem with the individuals or with the method? I will agree that it is some of both. But, you will have a hard time finding a CoC member (or any RM person) who does not claim a desire for unity.

But what do we say? "I would fellowship with them if they would only...." or "I don't feel comfortable fellowshipping them because they say ____ and ______ about this particular verse." Our hermeneutical model tells us that there is one and only one right way to do everything. It is a Rule, given by God, in his "Constitution" (that is, the New Testament). While we would like to have unity with everyone, we can only have unity with those who come to the same conclusions about what we are to infer from each "necessary inference" in our Constitutional Law book.

So, in the end, we must redefine what the unity is that Jesus prayed for, based on our own criteria for unity: "What is your view on this passage here?" "We know that Jesus prayed for unity...but he of course was praying for everyone to understand and obey each rule--whether clearly stated or inferred--in His System."

Now--please understand--all of this is an historical summary. I am not talking about you and me. I am talking about the history of our hermeneutical method in practice. Something needs to change before all of us are spread so thin that there is nothing left. This is the "impasse."

Thank you for clarifying this even though the questions aren't about your posts. I really appreciate that :)

After reading your posts, could one summarize the things you are talking about in a single problem: a lack of understanding? In particular, I would say that this lack of understanding seems most often to be with grace and mercy. This still all seems like a "people problem" to me rather than a problem with hermeneutics. It has been my experience that people focus on certain things and tend to neglect grace and mercy. If this is done, the problems that you have mentioned above are typically the result. What do you think?

[ischus]

Thank you for clarifying this even though the questions aren't about your posts. I really appreciate that :)

:)

After reading your posts, could one summarize the things you are talking about in a single problem: a lack of understanding? In particular, I would say that this lack of understanding seems most often to be with grace and mercy. This still all seems like a "people problem" to me rather than a problem with hermeneutics. It has been my experience that people focus on certain things and tend to neglect grace and mercy. If this is done, the problems that you have mentioned above are typically the result. What do you think?

I think your ideas definitely have validity. In fact, any problem that has ever come up in any church can ultimately be traced to a "people problem." In a sense, I was just assuming this and focussing on a specific area that people have problems with. In a context (church) where "people problems" are not only probable, but also historically certain, you would think that there would be an emphasis on Grace in light of our human tendency to mess things up...but just the opposite emphasis has typically been present. How ironic.

But, I think change is happening slowing. My only concern is that some who change in these aspects do so in a reactionary way, rather than in wisdom. When change comes from wisdom, it creates a healthy church. When change is a reaction against a bad personal experience, it creates an unstable church. The leaders today who want to create a new flavor of the CoC have some valid concerns, but they also tend to focus less on what the traditional CoC have done well.

It seems as if people either ignore our history and uphold our traditions, or are identifying our historical roots while jettisoning our heritage and traditions. Both are in need of balance and wisdom.

[Silent Enigma]

ischus, you hit the nail on the head regarding bringing the method of interpretation to it's logical extention.

when I was a new Christian I joined the CoC, and learned to interpret the bible using that mindset. A couple years later I left to join a very rule-oriented (really obscure rules too) offshoot of the CoC. I was just taking the method of interpretation to its conclusion. It was no surprise. I started qestioning the whole method 4 or so years ago and have been accused of being liberal (that's the easy one to throw at people) or just going after the lusts of the flesh.

The group I joined actually taught that it was a sin for men to TRIM their beards, in any way, because THERE IS NO EXAMPLE IN THE BIBLE THAT YOU CAN (except for moustaches but that doesn't count). That hermeneutic of making rules and doctrines based on what the bible doesn't say ended up forming a strange islamic version of Christianity. There were LOTS of other rules like this.

But it was a useful experience because I learned that that just didn't work. :)

[Silent Enigma]

hello?

[ischus]

hello

[Silent Enigma]

hey

[ischus]

I think this thread has died...

I liked your comments there, Silent Enigma. Many people come away with experiences that are similar to your own (myself included). What church to you go to now? Are you still in the CoC? (or in the Restoration Movement?)

ischus

[aggie03]

This still all seems to come down to a people problem and not a Bible or even a method problems. I would go even further and create two categories of the problem: (1) people do not understand correctly what the Scriptures teach (2) people teach things that are not found in the Scriptures. If either of these exists, then there will be some imperfections - but the existence of these two problems does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the method of understanding the Scriptures.

[ischus]

This still all seems to come down to a people problem and not a Bible or even a method problems. I would go even further and create two categories of the problem: (1) people do not understand correctly what the Scriptures teach (2) people teach things that are not found in the Scriptures. If either of these exists, then there will be some imperfections - but the existence of these two problems does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the method of understanding the Scriptures.

The whole argument is that the method constantly leads us into #1 and especially #2. I completely understand what you are saying and I agree with you. We are in essence saying the same thing in that the people problem began with Campbell and the others when they introduced the Hermeneutical method. It is basically a circular argument in that it is people who either introduce or buy into this method, and at the same time it is the method itself that is the problem.

We are just on opposite sides of the same circle. :)

[Silent Enigma]

I think this thread has died...

I liked your comments there, Silent Enigma. Many people come away with experiences that are similar to your own (myself included). What church to you go to now? Are you still in the CoC? (or in the Restoration Movement?)

ischus

I'm part of a home church group of ex-COC members. Hopefully I'm rubbing off on them.

[Andyman_1970]

This has been a very interesting topic. This discussion has shed some light on some of the discussions I've had with CoC'ers.........

Thanks..............