As we noted in a previous lesson on this subject, an increasingly popular view of biblical interpretation, even within some Churches of Christ, is the "historical-critical" approach. Which in effect says that many of the biblical commands were influenced by the culture the New Testament was composed in. Hence, since we live in a different time and culture the specifics or details of many biblical commands no longer apply to us. Common commands which this method is often used to attack are: Baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). The elements in the Lord's Supper. (1 Corinthians 11:26) Qualifications for elders. (1 Timothy 3:1-7) Music in congregational worship. (Eph. 5:19) The role of women in the church. (1 Tim. 2:11-13) Various moral issues. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) But before we examine some of those commands in detail, allow me to make some observations which are merely a continuation from the previous lesson on this subject.
(1) WAS JESUS A COWARD? Underlying this method of interpretation is the view that Jesus and His Apostles couldn't fully teach what they wanted to teach concerning such things as morality and the role of women, since such teaching would of shocked the present culture and brought upon themselves and the church tremendous persecution. But now that our culture has "loosened up", we are now permitted to teach, what they intended to teach on these subjects. Points to note: (a) This view claims to be able to read minds. For if Jesus never taught it or even hinted at it, then how can we honestly attribute a non-stated view to Him? Isn't this dishonest? Aren't we putting our words and our views into His mouth? (1 Corinthians 2:11) In fact, this view is being used to legitimize homosexuality. A common argument is that since Jesus didn't specifically comment upon homosexuality, then He must have endorsed it. Which would mean only one thing. He was afraid to endorse it, i.e. Jesus was a coward. It's amazing what lengths selfishness will go to in order to have it's own way. Do we have to make Jesus into a coward? Is that the price that some people are willing to pay so that they can do what they want to do? The truth is that Jesus and His Apostles took very unpopular positions and suffered for it! Jesus didn't remain quite on an issue because it might offend someone (Matthew 15:12-14) or because it might bring persecution upon Him. (Matthew 16:20-26) In fact, Jesus and His disciples preached openly a very unpopular idea. The truth that Jews and Gentiles stand before God on equal ground. (Galatians 3:28-29; Ephesians 2:14-19; Matthew 28:19-20)
(2) WERE THE BIBLICAL WRITERS ANTI-WOMEN? It is often argued that we can't trust what Paul and the other Apostles said about male/female roles in the home, society or the church because such writers were simply men influenced by the prejudices of the time.
Points to note: (a) But as F. Lagard Smith remarked in his book 'The Cultural Church', "If we can't trust Paul on the role of men and women in the church, how can we trust him on baptism and the Lord's supper?" (p. 88) (b) I think you are beginning to see, that this controversy isn't so much about "culture", as it is about "inspiration". Was Paul inspired or not? (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thess. 2:13) Do we believe what God says about His revelation or not? (Psalms 19:7-8; John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17) (c) How can anyone realistically sustain the position that the Bible is anti-women, when it continually is coming to the defense, elevation and protection of women? (Deut. 24:1-5; Proverbs 12:4; 31:10-31; Ecc. 9:9; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7; Galatians 3:28)
(3) INSTEAD-WE NEED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT OURSELVES: The ironic thing is that we have religious individuals claiming that the biblical writers were ignorant men, influenced by the misconceptions and prejudices of the culture they lived in. When the truth is that such professed "enlightened" individuals are the real "conformists" to this present world. (Romans 12:2) Jesus and His Apostles refused to allow first century culture to dictate truth for them. We often find them refusing to allow the world to squeeze them into its mold. (Matthew 19:3-9; Ephesians 2:2; 4:17; 5:3-7,11; Colossians 2:8; 1 Thess. 4:4-5; 1 Timothy 4:7; 1 John 2:15-15) On the contrary, those who ridicule and downgrade the biblical writers are the real conformists. F. Lagard Smith gives an excellent illustration of this within liberal Churches of Christ. "I recently heard a series of 'Shepherds' Talks' in which the role of elders was variously described as 'mediators', 'arbitrators', 'encouragers', and 'traffic cops'. No mention whatever was made about feeding the flock or leading it--the two things that most aptly describe what shepherds do. Nor does the increasingly popular idea of having elders serve for a two-or three-year term match the metaphor of a 'shepherd'...Are we sure that we are not reflecting current culture's corporate leadership structure...?" (The Cultural Church p. 210)
(4) HOW DO YOU DEFINE "OBEDIENCE" IN SUCH A METHOD? Wayne Jackson hit upon a pertinent point when he observed, "Just how would one honor the principle of obedience while doing that which has been specifically forbidden, or by failing to do that which has been commanded? That is truly a curious state of affairs...May one uphold the "principle" of remembering the death of Christ by utilizing steak and coffee in the communion supper? There is no way to maintain the principle of obedience while one is disobeying God!" (The Spiritual Sword. Volume 25, April 1994. p. 33) When you think about it, wouldn't such a method of biblical interpretation "excuse" or "justify" many cases of disobedience recorded in the Scriptures? Couldn't Cain (according to this view) have argued that his offering still manifested obedience in God, even though it wasn't the typical "cultural" sacrifice? (Genesis 4:3-7) How about Nadab and Abihu? (Leviticus 10:1-3) King Saul? (1 Samuel 15)
(5) A METHOD OF INTERPRETATION ROOTED IN HUMAN PRIDE: (2 Chron. 26:16-19)
Because it allows mankind to say to God, 'Well, You may have commanded
..... but God this is the way that "I" want to demonstrate
my love and obedience.' You see, in this method mankind gets to
choose how love for God and obedience to His will are DEFINED.
A. THE HOLY KISS:
"it is alleged that we must honor the "principles" which inhere in the commands of the New Testament, but we are allowed to alter activity modes to accommodate our present situation (before we move on-mentally apply that argument in the cases of Cain, Nadab and Abihu, King Saul, Uzzah, and King Uzziah-couldn't they have argued that they were still honoring the principle of "worship", but just under different "activity modes"?)..An analogy is commonly drawn between the "greeting kiss" of the first century (Romans 16:16), and that of modern women preachers. It is argued that if we may honor the greeting "principle" today, without holding to Paul's specific application (the kiss), then women may still respect the "principle" of feminine submission while publicly teaching audiences of both sexes." (Jackson p. 32) Before I allow Mr. Jackson to give his response, let me say something. (1) Many religious people hide behind the "holy kiss". They argue, 'You don't practice the holy kiss, therefore I don't have to be baptized, etc...' Now what type of logic is that? Or, what type of faith finds comfort in the following argument: 'You don't exactly (supposedly) follow the Bible, therefore I am excused for disobeying God in other areas?' (2) I have never found anyone who is hiding behind the "holy kiss" argument, willing to accept the following offer: "If our congregation implements the kiss as the ONLY form of greeting (because it is still practiced), will you then submit to baptism?" Which tells me that the argument isn't sincere. Jackson makes some good observations about the holy kiss: "There is absolutely no evidence that the saints of the early church were ever commanded to kiss one another PER SE as a method of greeting, and I know of no scholar who has ever argued that position. Kissing, as a method of greeting, had been practiced for centuries (See Gen. 27:26)..The thing commanded by the New Testament writers was that this practice be "holy" and "in love" (i.e. in the genuine spiritual interest of another). There is not a single passage in which the greeting kiss is mentioned where the admonition is not qualified by a modifying term (see Romans 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14). In view of this, one is bound to conclude that the instruction concerning the "holy kiss" is a binding today as it ever was. No Christian will ever be allowed to greet his brother or sister in lust, treachery, or hypocrisy." (pp. 32-33)
B. THE HEAD-COVERING OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16:
Points to note: (1) Like the "kiss" as a method of greeting, the covering had been in existence long before Paul came to Corinth. (Genesis 24:65) (2) Society had attached the meaning of femininity and subjection to the covering, God hadn't. (3) The covering wasn't something invented for public worship. The covering that a woman wore during worship, was the same covering that she wore any time she ventured out in public. (4) Actually, this text argues against the "historical-critical" approach. That approach says that we can discard any "customs" we don't like. 1 Corinthians 11 teaches, that God expects Christians to obey and respect morally neutral customs which society feels reflect important concepts, i.e. the distinction between the sexes, male headship, etc...
A. MARRIAGE/DIVORCE/REMARRIAGE:
But Jesus rooted His teachings concerning what constitutes a marriage, the permanency of marriage, when divorce is allowed and a subsequent remarriage: (1) The Creation account: (Matthew 19:4-6) (2) And His absolute right to settle the issue once and for all: (Matthew 19:9 'And I say to you'; 28:18)
B. THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH:
Again, Paul rooted that role in the Creation account: (1 Timothy 2:11-14) Note: The biblical writers never argue, 'We must have a restricted role for women in the church because society at this time isn't ready to accept complete equality for the sexes in all areas and if the church took that position, it would hinder acceptance with the community and be a hurdle to evangelism.' The truth is that the first century church took positions on a wide variety of subjects which alienated Christians from many groups in society. (1 Cor. 7:19; 8:4; 10:20) Along with this argument, is the claim that women are missing from leadership roles in the first century church, because women with sufficient skills didn't exist. I find that very insulting to the value, worth and talent of first century women. Talented and knowledgeable women did exist. (Luke 8:3; Acts 18:26; Romans 16:1; Titus 2:3-4)
C. SINGING/MUSIC IN THE WORSHIP:
Points to note: (1) Musical instruments did exist in the first century. (1 Cor. 14:7) (2) The music produced by them wasn't viewed as "carnal" or inherently unspiritual, for God had commanded their use in the worship found in the First Covenant. (Psalm 150:3-5) (3) If God had commanded their use or authorized it, first century churches could have afforded them. (1 Timothy 6:17) So price wasn't the hindrance. (4) So why didn't Christians use them in worship for the first 600 years of the church's existence? Obviously, the problem wasn't some "cultural" factor. Rather, Christians realized that the music commanded to praise God when Christians gathered together, was "singing". (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)
D. BAPTISM/IMMERSION IN WATER FOR REMISSION OF SINS:
Points to note: (1) The baptism commanded by Christ wasn't like the "ritual washings" of the Jewish religion. (a) Baptism is a one-time act. (Acts 8:12/22; Romans 6:3-5). (b) It is in the name of Christ, for the remission of actual sin (not some ceremonial impurity), and constitutes the way into the Church. (Acts 2:38,41,47). (c) It is tied to verses and found in verses which clearly transcend time and culture. (Matthew 28:19-20; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 Peter 3:21 'Now')
Mark Dunagan/12-11-94/ Beaverton Church of Christ/644-9017