I. 'The Last Generation to be Indoctrinated':
One advocate of the 'New Hermeneutic' argues, "mine was the last generation that would tolerate indoctrination." The inference is that the Churches of Christ, that stress book, chapter and verse preaching, are 'indoctrinating' their members. The word "indoctrinate" means, 'to instruct in or imbue (permeate or inspire) with doctrines, theories, or beliefs, to instruct or teach.' (Webster p. 717) But the word has also acquired a negative meaning, i.e. that propaganda and prejudices are being imparted rather than unbiased knowledge. In response to the above charge, note the following:
A. EVERYBODY INDOCTRINATES:
The advocates of the 'New Hermeneutic' preach sermons, speak at lectureships, write articles and publish books. For what purpose is all this done? To teach, instruct and convince people of a particular 'doctrine'. Such is nothing more than 'indoctrination'.
B. HOW DOES ONE AVOID ACCEPTING PREJUDICE AND PROPAGANDA?
If the Bible is not the Word of God, then there is no way to avoid
believing prejudiced teachings. For all views, theories, beliefs
and convictions would only be the inventions of fallible men and
women. But if the Bible is the Word of God, then propaganda and
prejudice can be avoided if I simply believe what God has said,
and allow myself to be "indoctrinated/taught" by the
Master Teacher. (JOHN 6:44-45) Paul viewed 'preaching the Word'
as the only sure way to avoid being sucked in by myths and fables
(2 TIMOTHY 4:2-4)
II. Their view of 'Christ-Centered Preaching':
"Would it not follow then that anyone who proclaims Jesus as the risen Christ and the Saviour of the world is preaching the good news of the gospel, ALL OF THE GOSPEL? Granted, the likes of Billy Graham may err in not properly instructing people how to respond to the good news by repenting of their sins and being baptized for the remission of their sins like Peter did on the day of Pentecost. But if one preaches Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world he is preaching the gospel, APART from what he might or might not say about baptism." (Restoration Review. Leroy Garrett, May 1992 p. 288)
This is nothing more than the old denominational argument of 'preach the man, not the plan'. Many in this movement are somehow under the impression that when I preach on such subjects as 'what must I do to be saved', that I have departed from preaching Christ.
A. DID JESUS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE 'MAN' AND THE 'PLAN'? Mark 16:15-16
B. WHAT DID THE APOSTLES PREACH WHEN THEY 'PREACHED CHRIST?'
(Acts 2:22-36, 37-41; 8:5,12; 8:35-38)
In the same article, the writer said, "Did any New Testament evangelist ever 'preach baptism'?" The answer is 'YES!' In Acts 8:36, where did the Eunuch get the idea that he needed to be baptized? Someone had to tell him, instruct him, PREACH TO HIM! The inference is clear, 'preaching Jesus' (Acts 8:35), included preaching on subjects such as baptism (8:36). In addition, if a preacher is commanding you to be baptized, isn't he preaching it? (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 22:16)
C. WITHOUT THE 'PLAN', THE MESSAGE ABOUT THE 'MAN' IS MEANINGLESS:
"A gospel which tells men that they CAN be saved without telling them HOW to be saved is useless!" The apostles instructed people concerning the question, 'what must I do to be saved', and preached on this subject. (Acts 2:37-41 'with many other words he ..kept on exhorting them'. Exhorting them to do what? Acts 16:31-34 'and they spoke the word of the Lord to him'.)
D. TRUE CHRIST-CENTERED/CROSS-CENTERED PREACHING:
The mistake being made by the advocates of the 'New Hermeneutic', is that they only see one side of the cross, i.e. Jesus died for our sins. But the ramifications of the death, burial and resurrection also includes the fact that Jesus is "LORD" (Acts 2:36; Matthew 28:18) True Cross-Centered/Christ-Centered preaching involves preaching a message that demonstrates respect for the word of the Lord revealed through His apostles (John 16:13; 1 Cor. 14:37) Anytime that I preach a lesson that uses the Words of the Lord to teach truth, expose error, etc..that lesson is Christ-Centered. It is interesting to note what an inspired writer considered to be foundational topics among Christians (Hebrews 6:1-2 Faith, repentance, baptism, heaven, hell) Such subjects are called "the elementary teaching ABOUT THE CHRIST", I.E. CHRIST-CENTERED LESSONS. (6:1)
E. JESUS DID SOME 'PREACHING' AFTER HE ASCENDED: REVELATION 2-3
What is the subject-matter of these two chapters? The advocates
of the 'New Hermeneutic' complain about lessons that expose denominational
error, claiming that such are not 'Christ-Centered' lessons. In
fact, Randy Mayeux, preacher for the Preston Road church in Dallas,
said, "In the 1990's, diversity will be the only game in
town.' Well what does the Lord say? We should note that Jesus
preached against various First Century religious sects. (Revelation
2:6 '..the Nicolaitans, which I also hate'; 2:15,20 'who calls
herself a prophetess, and she TEACHES and leads My bond-servants
ASTRAY'. He also mentioned 'false apostles' (2:2), and called
a Jewish synagogue, 'the synagogue of Satan' (3:9) OUCH!
A. EVERYBODY EXPOSES WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE WRONG:
The very people in this movement that complain when a gospel preacher exposes denominational or any kind of error, practice the same type of preaching themselves. Beware of the myth, 'we only preach positive sermons', nobody does that! In fact, some of the biggest proponents of "only positive lessons", end up rebuking a lot of people in their lessons. As noted previously Randy Mayeux, a strong supporter of this doctrine, delivered a sermon on the campus of Lubbock Christian University that was nothing more than a tirade against what the Church of Christ has preached for years. He claimed that the well known tract, 'Can we all understand the Bible alike", represents an ignorant viewpoint. He charged that the Scriptures cannot be uniformly understood. Which of course makes 1 Cor. 1:10 rather meaningless. POINT TO CONSIDER: If the Scriptures cannot be uniformly understood, then why is this preacher rebuking someone that claims they can? You see, NO TOLERATION is given to the view presented in the tract. But if the Scriptures cannot be uniformly understood, then ALL VIEWS SHOULD BE TOLERATED! The above preacher is contradicting himself, for, 'we cannot understand the bible alike', IS A UNIFORM DOCTRINE that he believes ALL MUST ACCEPT! And if they don't their ignorant!
B. THE APOSTLES EXPOSED ERROR:
Paul repeatedly answered false teachings in his letters (Romans 3:8..'as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say...WHOSE CONDEMNATION IS JUST' There's positive preaching for you! 6:1; 1 Corinthians 15:12; Galatians 3:1) The same advocates condemn 'debating'. And yet Paul debated (Acts 17:2-3), and so did Jesus (Matthew 22), in fact, Jesus even took the offensive in this debate (Matthew 22:41 'Jesus asked them a question').
C. POSITIVE PREACHING AND NEGATIVE PREACHING GO HAND IN HAND:
TITUS 2:11 'For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men' That's a positive statement, sounds good. 2:12 'INSTRUCTING US..DENYING UNGODLINESS AND WORLDLY LUSTS..' 'Deny ungodliness and lust'-that's negative. There are some things that 'grace' says we cannot do. (2 Timothy 4:2)
D. JESUS AND THE APOSTLES PREACHED SOME NEGATIVE LESSONS:
The sermon preached by Jesus in Matthew 23 was negative, contained arguments, strong statements, severe rebuke, clearly defined wrong actions, made a distinction between truth and error and left a feeling of condemnation upon those that it was addressed to. Paul instructed Titus that he needed to reprove the members of the church on Crete in a severe manner. (Titus 1:13 'reprove them sharply'-'speak to them as sternly as necessary' (Tay).
IV. The fear of getting into a Theological Rut:
"There seems to be a terrible dread among some, that they will do something which brethren have done before and therefore will fall into some theological rut." (GOT. Connie Adams 10-7-93 p. 4)
This is the opposite extreme of those that don't want to do something scriptural for the simple reason, 'well, we have never done that before'. Those in this movement seem to want to discard all 'traditional ways of doing things'. They ignore the following facts:
A. SOME TRADITIONS ARE GOOD: 2 THESSALONIANS 2:15
The word 'tradition' means 'a handing down', i.e. something that has been handed down. Solomon at this point would argue that really nothing is 'entirely new' (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11). So in reality everything, even new 'Innovative forms of worship and church organization', have come from somewhere in the past. Hence everything is a 'tradition'. The CRUCIAL ISSUE IS "WHO FIRST HANDED IT DOWN, WHO IS THE SOURCE OR ORIGIN OF THIS TEACHING?" Has this been handed down from God? (Heb. 1:1-2) or did it come from man? Those teachings handed down from the apostles we need to keep.
B. JESUS WAS IN A RUT: LUKE 4:16
While Jesus was upon the earth and living under the Law of Moses, He habitually met with other Jews on every Sabbath Day, and went through the same 'synagogue routine' every week. Likewise, the Lord's Supper that Jesus instituted for the New Covenant INVOLVES FREQUENCY. (1 Cor. 11:25-26). So does giving (1 Cor. 16:1-2).
C. EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING IS SOME FORM OF HABIT/RUT/PATTERN:
Various religious groups try to worship God differently every Sunday, less, God forbid, someone gets bored. But even such unstructured worship, performed week after week becomes the "rut" entitled, "we must do something entirely different each week".
D. WHAT TYPE OF WORSHIP DOES GOD CONDEMN?
Worship that involves adding or subtracting from His word (Gen. 4:3-7; Lev. 10:1-3; 1 Sam. 15:22-23). Worship offered by the unrepentant (Isaiah 1:1-15). Worship void of the human heart (Matt. 6:7) or from wrong motives (6:1). Worship that doesn't give God the best (Mal. 1:8-10). But I never find God condemning people because they haven't INNOVATED ENOUGH! And think: Did Jesus, the most Spiritual minded man of all time, every introduce any 'new innovations of worship' into the JEWISH SYSTEM? Remember, the Lord's Supper was for a New Covenant, and not a new innovation into an already existing agreement between God and Israel.
Mark Dunagan 10-31-93 / Beaverton Church of Christ/644-9017