Gary D. Collier
Pasadena, California
June 1990 [See footnote 1]
To view them, scroll down manually.
In their much discussed book, The Worldly Church, Leonard Allen, Richard Hughes, and Michael Weed have pointed to a very serious problem. While many in Churches of Christ have moved away from an atomistic approach to Scripture (that much is good news), some of those same people are falling off the other side into an even more dangerous chasm: they are walking further and further away from the Bible itself.
[They] have done little more than exchange the old common sense approach, with its mechanical tones, for a new and more marketable version of the same thing. They have exchanged one self-help formula for another. In such an exchange the losses outweigh the gains. For our traditional way of reading Scripture, even with its shortcomings, always exalted the text and took it with utmost seriousness. But today that appears to be less and less the case.2
While few deny that such movement is taking place, not everyone agrees with the low estimation of traditional interpretive approaches within the Churches of Christ.
Throughout the book, the authors point to dangers in atomistic legalism on the one extreme, and "need-centered" secularism on the other. The right path to take, they say, is an attention to biblical theology, in which "the theological centers of Scripture" are sought out, which will give "everything else its significance and shape."3 This has not been our approach up to now, and "we will have to labor long and hard" to surpass faulty approaches:
"We must not continue, as in the past, simply lining up doctrinal planks of equal size and nailing them into a flat doctrinal platform. Nor, disillusioned with that, can we simply ransack the Bible for those texts that seem most useful for `meeting needs'."4
This book has much to commend it, as do the subsequent books, The Illusions of Innocence and The Cruciform Church. The passion of the authors to sound a warning against an encroaching secularism can hardly be faulted.
Here, however, I wish to draw a somewhat different picture of the hermeneutical5 spectrum within the Churches of Christ especially during the last forty years. It seems that a more accurate description of current hermeneutical emphases would include at least three perspectives, though these are by no means always mutually exclusive. These perspectives may be identified by the amount of emphasis placed on (1) propositional, (2) historical, and (3) theological, and (4) pietistic interests. This paper will focus on an evaluation of the first three.
For lack of better terminology, I will refer to the various points of view as (1) the rationalist/inductive perspective,6 (2) the historical/contextual perspective,7 and (3) the biblical theology perspective.8 It will be argued that even though they have existed side by side to a greater or lesser degree since the early 1950's, there has been relatively little dialogue between them, and that none of the approaches, as each has come to exist, is adequate for what is currently needed. With respect to the third perspective, it will be argued that the first has tended to undercut it and that the second has tended to stop short of it. This third perspective, however, has great merit and deserves to be pursued further, even though it, too, is subject to a certain amount of criticism and must be approached with care.
Before proceeding, however, it should be emphasized again that although the perspectives to be examined are different, they are not totally mutually-exclusive. Certainly, those who are primarily historically/contextually inclined will use inductive and deductive reasoning to one degree or another (as all interpreters will),9 and will have definite ideas about theology; and some of those who lean toward the rationalist/inductive approach will emphasize scholarship, historical context, and theology to one degree or another,10 and so forth. There is some inevitable overlap, and it would be a mistake to assume that all the lines between the approaches are clearly drawn and separated. Even so, there are unmistakable differences in emphasis among them, and it is those differences that I wish to bring into focus.
Furthermore, I wish to make it clear that I do not regard the question of biblical hermeneutics as the sine qua non of church life and Christian living. Unfortunately, intense discussions tend to blow matters out of proportion, to draw artificial lines of distinctions, and to isolate related matters. When this happens it is unfortunate. Hopefully, it will be enough to say here that in the following discussion I focus on the hermeneutical question per se and do not try to discuss other related matters.11 My desire is to make a focused contribution on biblical hermeneutics, believing that such a contribution will have implications for the broader discussion of understanding and living the desire of God.
PART I:
THE RATIONALIST/INDUCTIVE PERSPECTIVE
When J.D. Thomas wrote in 1958 that the traditional three-fold means of establishing biblical authority (by direct commands, necessary inference, and approved apostolic example) has "in general been accepted by all of us since the beginning of the Restoration period of church history,"12 he underscored just how entrenched that particular approach had become by the mid-20th century. His full statement is quite to the point and bears repeating:
"There has previously been no serious need to challenge any one of them. Direct commands . . . and necessary inferences have both seemed obvious enough and clear enough for definite teaching of required actions, and thus no question has been raised concerning them. [Approved apostolic examples have also been] accepted without question."13
There is little question that the hermeneutical approach as outlined indeed became the system of choice within Churches of Christ fairly early-on in the movement. It is not quite accurate, however, to say that it has been so accepted from the beginning of the movement. In point of fact, it came into favor amid heated controversy in the mid-to-late 19th century and crystallized in its present form in the early 20th century in the rationalist/inductive perspective.
The Rise of Necessary Inference
One of the most significant studies on the origin and triumph of "necessary inference" in the Restoration Movement is Michael W. Casey's 1986 doctoral dissertation.14 Casey shows that prior to 1830, both Thomas and Alexander Campbell strongly rejected (on philosophical grounds15) the validity of inferences for establishing biblical authority. But they began to change their position after 1830 -- gradually at first, then rapidly -- because of practical (not theological) considerations being faced in the movement. And the whole process took place amid heated controversy.
A key factor in this development was the establishment of Bethany College (the summer of 1841), whose faculty included A. Campbell, Robert Richardson, W. K. Pendleton and Robert Milligan. By using the rhetorical and logical theory of Richard Whatley, the "Bethany Circle"16 in the late 1840's and 1850's was able to rehabilitate deductive logic without undermining the basic presuppositions of the inductive method, thus establishing a theoretical basis for necessary inference in an inductive framework.17 In this way, inductive and deductive approaches were wedded in a non mutually-exclusive manner and necessary inference gained both a philosophical and rhetorical justification for existence in the context of a thoroughgoing interest in the inductive method.18
The result was that by 1870 two camps had emerged and had become quite polarized: the conservatives (including David Lipscomb, Tolbert Fanning, and Ben Franklin) flatly rejected the validity of necessary inference and held tenaciously to Campbell's earlier position against the binding nature of inferences; and the moderates (especially Isaac Errett) strongly advocated the validity of necessary inference and followed Campbell into using inferences to justify the development of church practices not specifically mentioned in Scripture.
But eventually the conservatives also adopted necessary inference.19 Undoubtedly, several factors are important for the change in position, not the least of which would be the rise of modern biblical criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the felt-need of the conservatives to combat its destructive tendencies.20
The result was a crystallization of hermeneutical thought and a virtual isolation from biblical scholarship on the broad scale.21 The influence of Moses Lard, J. W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb, G. C. Brewer, and others can hardly be overestimated. The thoroughgoing inductive approach to Scripture was further refined and constantly emphasized, and the predominant view became the three-fold command, example, and necessary inference. G. C. Brewer's 1949 statement can be cited as typical:
"I do insist that the Scriptures must either authorize our practice in specific terms or by example or by necessary inference."22
The Gospel Advocate Commentaries
The most important single literary production by those who follow the rationalist/inductive approach has been the Gospel Advocate Commentary series on the New Testament.23 Several comments are in order with reference to the hermeneutical methodology of this series.24
(1) There is an inconsistency in the attitude of the commentators toward scholarship per se. Depending on the polemical need of the commentator, scholars are viewed either as authorities or as false teachers. J. W. Shepherd, for example, explained why the commentaries were based on the American Standard Version:
"It is recognized as the best by men who are entitled to speak with authority -- by leaders of the foremost universities, colleges, theological seminaries, and Bible training schools."25
But this statement sounds strange when put beside guy n. Woods' later statement. Woods noted that his commentary on James had been prepared for average students of the scriptures who have limited time and who sincerely want to know what is in James, but who
"are not acquainted with, or interested in, the denominational theologians of the age; and who would not be edified, but merely bewildered, by an array of their various and often false opinions."26
In the final outcome, it is not surprising to find that very little interaction with broader scholarship takes place.
(2) There is an inconsistency at a fundamental level between the commentators' hermeneutical theory and their hermeneutical practice. Although the commentary series contains no separate essay on hermeneutical procedure (thus it is never spelled out specifically in any detail), the methodology is nonetheless stated now and then. Theoretically, the "context" is to play a determinative role in explaining the meaning of a given text. Lipscomb, for example, commented that "the context of a Scripture is the only safe guide in determining what that Scripture means."27 As a result, context is mentioned throughout. Attention is given in every commentary not only to a phrase-by-phrase explanation, but also to matters of authorship, date, place, occasion, etc.
But despite the theory, there are many texts which are traditionally important to those within the Restoration Movement where there is little or no attempt to relate phrases to their contexts; rather they are often discussed as separate units which may be transported readily to other portions of Scripture to serve as commentary, or to support long held interpretations that have been passed around orally or in print. It is as though the words of those texts inherently contain unmistakable meanings that are clear to everyone whether the context is known or not.
The result is that for all practical purposes, the context carries no interpretive value whatever. The controlling interest turns out, instead, to be the following question: "What does the Bible require of us?" Thus, the quest for biblical authority by means of the three-fold criteria of command, example, and necessary inference becomes the dominant hermeneutical principle, often to the neglect of historical and even theological context. A few examples will illustrate this point.
(a) Guy N. Woods, in his commentary on James, points to the phrase "But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath," and says that since the verb "let . . . be" (esto) is imperative "James thus commands each of those to whom he wrote" to obey the saying.28 But in fact, neither the imperative mood in and of itself29 nor the context calls for such a statement. If this logic were correct, it should also be said that James commands his readers to "count it all joy" (1:2), to "let steadfastness have its full effect" (1:4), and to "ask God in faith" (1:5-6). In that case, he also commands the rich and poor to "boast in" their respective exaltation and humiliation (1:9-10), commands that one is "not to say he is tempted by God" (1:13), and commands the readers "not to be deceived" (1:16). This of course does not pay adequate attention to the context of the passage, but is arguing on the basis of a preconceived hermeneutical position. The only reason one would regard the phrase "let everyone be" as a command is if such commands were being looked for based on the question, "What does the Bible require of us?" But it surely does not come from the context.
(b) H. Leo Boles followed the same procedure when explaining the phrase "the first day of the week" in Acts 20:7. He referred to 1 Cor 16:1-2 to show that meeting on the first day of the week was a "well established custom" among Christians, and that "this custom is now a command, or rather, there is a command for this collection to be taken on the first day of the week."30 J. W. Shepherd refers to the same passages (along with Heb 10:25 and Acts 2:42) and comments that the first day of the week "is the only regular service for which there is precept or example in the New Testament."31 The question is never asked whether these texts were intending to give either precept or example in the sense these authors assume, and there is little effort to discuss the overall significance of the phrase in its own context. Again, this results from a prior question brought to the text, though it is never stated forthrightly: "What are we commanded to do?"
(c) Precisely the same point can be made about the commentators on the so-called "divorce texts" in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; and Luke 16:18. Again, the central (though unstated) question that each of the commentators addresses is not "what is each text saying in its own context" but rather the more general "what does the Bible require of us?" As a result, the "canon within the canon" on this question of marriage, divorce, and remarriage becomes Matt 19:1-12 -- all other texts are interpreted in light of a particular interpretation of it rather than their own contexts.
C. E. W. Dorris, for example, does not deal at all with the form of the saying of Jesus as it appears in Mark 10:11, but adds the "exception clause" from Matt 19:9:
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, -- `Saving for the cause of fornication.' (Matt. 19:9) -- and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
He then discusses guilty and innocent parties and who is free to remarry, as though this were inherent in what Jesus had said, and as though such is apparent to all who look "objectively" at the text. Boles follows the same course in Luke 16:18, though he does have the interesting comment that, "the connection of this verse with what precedes or what follows is obscure."32 aside from that, however, Matt 5 and 19 are used to explain Luke 16:18. Boles discusses Matt 5 itself primarily through Matt 19, and a quote is included from Lipscomb which summarizes the whole debate:
The language of Jesus on the subject of adultery and divorce is plain. I see nothing difficult to understand in it; I cannot write a plainer sentence than [Jesus spoke in Matt 5:31-32]. . . Every man and every woman that has separated from a husband or wife save for the cause of fornication, and is living with another, is living in adultery. The law is positive and clear; and no reasoning of man, whether preacher or not, can change it. I do not see what more can be said on that point.33
The phrase "necessary inference" is not used specifically, but that is clearly the intent. "Committeth adultery" is interpreted to mean "living in adultery," and such a view is regarded as "positive and clear." When commenting on Matthew 19 itself, Boles makes a similar but even stronger statement when he says that anyone in such a marriage
is under the curse of God and is in sin so long as he or she remains in the connection. (1 Cor 5:5.) All the legislatures, teachings of men, and infidel presses in the world cannot remove the curse; they only number themselves among those who deny the word of God and call evil good and good evil. Jesus here teaches no new laws; he simply declares what has always been the law of God. Unlawful intercourse with any other person permits the innocent party to break the marriage tie; the guilty party has deserted forever the marriage partner; and has become unfit for further association; the guilty party can never again enter a pure and lawful marriage covenant.34
In all of this, the individual texts are never viewed in their literary contexts, but are mashed together (along with interpretations and traditions) to form one pointed doctrine, which is then used to interpret each of the texts individually. Again, the question which is asked of the text is not, "What does this text mean in its own context?" Rather, the question addressed is "What does the Bible command on marriage, divorce, and remarriage?" And once asked in this way, the answer quite naturally conforms to the nature of the question.
(d) A final example is J. W. Shepherd's comment on the phrase "singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord" (Eph 5:19). Instead of discussing what impact this phrase has on its own context, or vice versa, Shepherd's entire concern was more contemporary: What constitutes acceptable singing?35 The cue for this question comes from the phrase "with your heart" (as opposed to anything other than your heart, viz., instrumental music.) But is the point of this text to establish the means of acceptable music? This question is never addressed.36 Because of Shepherd's concern, he ends up drawing the following conclusion:
No performance of an instrument can possibly grow out of the word of God in the heart; a mechanical instrument cannot speak that word either to praise God or to teach and admonish one another. The sound of the instrument drowns the words sung and hinders the teaching and admonition. The use of the instrument hinders and destroys the essential purpose of the worship in song. It works an entire change in the song service; it sooner or later changes it from a service of praise to God into a musical and artistic entertainment that pleases and cultivates the fleshly and sensual nature. A more hurtful change could not be made in the worship than this change in its spirit and purpose. If it was a sin to change the appointments of God in the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, which were sealed by the typical blood of animals, much more is it a sin to change the ordinances and appointments of the Christian dispensation, sealed by the Son of God (Heb 10:28, 29).37
Again, Shepherd does not call his conclusion a "necessary inference," but that it has this force for him can hardly be missed. His conclusion is quite pointed: to use instruments in worship is a sin. There is little doubt that this is a question of contemporary significance, but Shepherd never asked why or how the phrase was significant for its own context, or what its function was in its own context.
Now in pointing out these examples it is certainly not my intention to call into question the religious convictions of the commentators, or any other matter of their personal character. I have rather attempted to focus on the question of hermeneutical and theological method. As a result, it can be summarized that in the Gospel Advocate Commentaries (at least on some matters of long standing debate and concern), the criterion of understanding a text within its own context is not a doctrine of hermeneutical practice that is to be taken seriously. That is to say, history is thoroughly divorced from theology; the historical aspects of the text have little to do with determining the lasting theological significance of the text. In the final analysis, the immediate or larger contexts have only passing significance for understanding the "clear statements" (i.e., theological meaning) of Scripture. The central question is not "What did a text (or a command or an example) mean in its own context?" Nor is the question asked, "Was a text (or a command or an example) intended as an authoritative statement to establish a biblical norm?" Rather the question of greatest concern is simply, "What does the Bible command us to do?" This is the prime theological objective, and it is attained by way of seeking out commands, examples, and necessary inferences. Thus, the hermeneutical method becomes the theological agenda.
Restatement and Refinement: J. D. Thomas
One of the clearest and most comprehensive restatements of the rationalist/inductive position in the 20th century issues from the pen of J.D. Thomas. In his first book on the subject, We Be Brethren (1958), he considered the question of when and how examples teach, refining and clarifying the rationalist/inductive method in two major ways: First, the "Standard Diagram of Authority" was developed which graphically shows the hierarchical relationship between "generic and specific patterns, excluded specifics, and optional expedients."38 Secondly, the "Pattern Principle" was developed which states that a binding example must contain "the logical implication of a command."39 The upshot of the book is to argue that at least some biblical examples inherently establish pattern authority.40 In the second book, Heaven's Window (1974), the methodology was not so much refined any further as the position was restated in light of the first book. Here the underlying philosophical tenets of the rationalist/inductive method were dealt with.
The major tenets of the position are as follows: (1) there is a philosophical need for an authoritative Word from God to man;41 (2) the Bible has blueprint-pattern authority;42 (3) the three-fold interpretive method -- command, example, necessary inference -- is necessary for establishing pattern authority;43 (4) the Bible consists of facts and propositional statements;44 (5) the inductive method as represented by Dungan is the best approach;45 and (6) the grammatico-historical method is important and is the same as the inductive method.46
While we are grateful for the clarity with which the position is set forth in these books, and certainly for the spirit which motivated it, the position is nevertheless open to serious criticism. Only two points will be made here.
(1) In spite of the emphasis on the grammatico-historical method, the historical interest does not seem to bear significantly on the conclusions for the position(s) argued. Heaven's Window, for example, makes a strong claim that the "grammatico-historical exegete" will examine all of the important data: the language, the historical circumstances, the purpose, and the context.47 But when the "New Testament Claims" are examined in chapter 10, for establishing one of the basic tenets of the position being upheld, it is not historical but dogmatic concerns that prevail. In fact, a classic example of proof-texting occurs at a very important point in the argument. Rom 6:17; 2 Tim 1:13; and Heb 8:5 are cited (along with a number of references to Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) for the meaning of the words typos, hypotyposis, and hypodeigma ("pattern or standard"). It is then noted:
We have established unexceptionably the fact that the New Testament does claim pattern authority for its words and its teaching.48
However, none of the passages cited has anything to do with the New Testament claiming pattern authority for itself. What is defined as pattern (viz., a required blueprint for all time to be recovered from Scripture through interpretation) is quite different from what the passages cited mean by pattern. Both Rom 6:17 and 2 Tim 1:13 point to ethical lifestyle being based on the proclamation of the Christian message (i.e., "the standard of teaching") which they had heard presumably from Christian evangelists (Romans) and from Paul (2 Timothy). Hebrews 8:5, speaks only of the "pattern shown you on the mountain" as the model for the original tabernacle. These passages make no claims for "pattern authority" for the writings of the New Testament. As with the commentaries mentioned above, in spite of claims to the contrary, the stated interests in authorship, date, biblical context, and the like affect the overall outcome very little, if any at all.
(2) The position as stated also contains a serious inconsistency over what has controlling interest. In theory, the well-being of people is at the heart of the method, but in practice, it is quite another matter.
For example, the two books under review were motivated by a desire to put forward a hermeneutical clarification that would "alleviate the tensions between BRETHREN and would thus permit us to get on with our main business of saving the world."49 The underlying motivation for the salvation of sinners and unity among brothers in a brotherhood that was becoming sharply divided over a number of issues is clear. "Our purpose is to produce faith in Christ, not faith in a certain doctrine about the Bible; the Scriptures are the means to an end, not the goal itself,"50 The focus is on Christ and not the Bible per se. Again, it is clear from the following statement that, theoretically at least, the concern is not with a dehumanized approach to Scripture and the Christian faith:
We are not saying that Christianity is a hocus-pocus system where one gets a magical reward for just having the right passwords. Neither is it a mechanical ritualism that gives merit for going through the correct motions, while penalizing those who go through the wrong motions with an eternity in hell. Rather Christianity is something big -- it is spiritual and is concerned with the whole of man and with the whole of truth. It is an attitude of heart and life that issues in character and godlikeness.51
But here is precisely the problem. How do these statements square with the pattern principle and with the concept of obedience to the pattern requirements of God (as discovered through commands, examples, and necessary inferences) as these are worked out and emphasized by the rationalist/inductive approach? This question is never specifically addressed,52 except in the most general terms.
This problem can be seen especially in the distinctions drawn between subjectivity and objectivity. In the same paragraph of the statement just quoted, subjectivity in Christianity (including sincerity and good intentions) is pitted against "real, factual truth," and it is concluded that "Christianity . . . must be in right relation to propositional statements that are true, as versus false."53 This quote appears in chapter 10 which attempts to justify the "pattern" concept (as discussed above) as scriptural, and in a section titled "Correctness in Doctrine." As worded, the argument is not directed against all subjectivity per se, but primarily advocates the primacy of objective truth. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that if subjectivity has any value, it is minimal, for "`the streets of hell are paved with good intentions'; subjectivity can in no wise bring the results that real, factual truth can."54
In this way it becomes clear that there is a battle going on between the objective and the subjective, and that the subjective has no independent merit. For, the initial definition of Christianity (defined theoretically in the subjective terms of faith, character, godlikeness, and an attitude of heart and life -- all of which are certainly biblical concepts) is actually complete only when it is understood in the brighter light of the objective "right relation to propositional statements that are true, as versus false," -- otherwise it is not Christianity at all, but mere subjectivity. Thus, the objective elements predominate:
We are saying that patterns are rigid -- when God requires something, he requires it! This is not to say that grace cannot forgive a wrong once done -- but it is to say that it is a wrong, because a requirement of God has been violated -- and the person will remain a sinner unless grace and forgiveness are invoked through the proper pattern requirements that bring forgiveness.55
It is certainly justifiable to emphasize the wrongness of sin. But to make grace and forgiveness subject to "proper pattern requirements" is frightening. Proper pattern requirements do not bring forgiveness! So the primary objective, which starts out as "faith in Christ," in the final analysis turns out to mean getting in a "right relation to propositional statements," and being able to tap into "the proper pattern requirements."
But how can one ever know whether he or she is in that right relationship, and thus a Christian? How can one truly discern God's required pattern? This is why the two books were written, to make it possible to know by defining more clearly how to determine when an example has pattern authority and thus "changes itself into a command."56 In the final analysis, one's faith and life in Christ turns on his or her ability to distinguish between "optional expedients" and "excluded specifics." Of course it is not stated this way and I do not think this is the intention -- but it nevertheless works out this way.
PART II: THE HISTORICAL/CONTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE
A recent series of articles in the Restoration Quarterly57 has made it clear that a resurgence58 of interest in worldwide biblical scholarship began to arise within the Churches of Christ in the decades following World War II. This interest was prompted by the beginning of the graduate programs in Bible at Pepperdine, Harding, and Abilene, and by the number of graduates that went on to doctoral studies from those programs. By and large, the interest spawned a commitment to the "historical method" of interpretation,59 and began to express itself in a number of major publications, including (among others) the Restoration Quarterly, the Living Word Commentaries, and a festschrift specifically devoted to biblical hermeneutics.60
The Restoration Quarterly
Founded in 1957, Restoration Quarterly became an important forum for the historical/contextual emphasis. James Thompson has observed that the purpose of the journal was "to provide a forum for scholars who were active in research, many of whom were completing doctoral dissertations at the time."61 However, many of the articles were aimed also at preachers, to provide them with a resource for better understanding the Bible.
An important concern of those who have written in the journal has been to espouse and practice the historical method of interpretation.62 In its first issue, there were two articles on the subject of interpretation. Paul Southern's "Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Restoration Movement" was more a celebration of Restorationism than an assessment of Restoration methods; and J. W. Roberts "Exegetical Helps" was the first of many installments under that title providing insightful philological contributions to the scholar and preacher alike. Subsequently, numerous articles appeared on exegesis and exegetical method, biblical backgrounds, the early church, the Restoration Movement, and other related subjects.63
When the whole of Restoration Quarterly is considered to the present day, entire issues have been devoted to explaining and demonstrating the method and task of biblical interpretation (1961), New Testament scholarship (1965), Old Testament scholarship (1966), and Scholarship in the Restoration Movement (1982). Other issues have also been devoted to a single topic, and although not concerned with exegetical method per se, are nevertheless living demonstrations of the historical approach to Scripture.64
The Living Word Commentaries
How well have the hermeneutical concerns of those working from a historical/contextual perspective been relayed to the churches? The major hermeneutical effort to date is the Living Word Commentary project,65 an exegetical commentary series based on the historical method for, in the words of John Willis, "the average church member, and not for other biblical scholars."66 Certainly, this project was vitally needed and in many ways has been successful in achieving its goals.
It is instructive to notice how the commentators of this set67 differ from the commentators of the Gospel Advocate Commentaries on the same passages referred to in the first article.68 On the positive side, the Living Word Commentaries avoid the polemical attitudes of the other commentators, staying closely anchored to the historical and exegetical concerns of the text at hand. On the negative side, they do not address the topic in ways that will always register with readers from the Restoration Movement. When readers go to these commentaries on the selected texts, they will often find what seems to be a very strange silence on the very subject they are interested in reading about. It ends up looking like the commentators did not do a very good job "discussing the passage". But more than that, the readers are often not moved one step from their old understanding of the text, because they are not challenged to do so.
One of the fine features of the Living Word Commentaries is the inclusion of introductory volumes for both the Old Testament and New Testament. But even here, the articles on Bible study69 in these volumes suffer, in my opinion, from two major problems.
(1) Neither article clearly addresses the major hermeneutical context of mid 20th century readers who come from a Restoration background. It is perhaps one the ironies of this approach, which rightly places so much emphasis on historical "context" when interpreting Scripture, that it has not spoken clearly to the hermeneutical tradition of its own audience!
It is not that the articles are unintelligible. The article by Willis, in fact, is quite good. But they both fall short in what they do not address. There is no question that both articles have in mind, just out of view, a faulty methodology (viz., the rationalist/inductive approach) which they wish to adjust to a better, more productive perspective. But that faulty approach is never clearly addressed.
Regardless of what the reasons were for not dealing directly with the issue, it is becoming increasingly counter-productive to continue such a policy.70 It leaves readers of the commentary with little or no idea that anything different is being offered -- unless they know it already. What is needed is an unmistakable dialogue between competing points of view on how to read the Bible.
(2) Neither article clearly addresses the issue of "what the text means today". Surely, emphasis has rightly been placed on the distinction between "exegesis" (what the text meant then), and "appropriation" (what it means now"), and careful, historical exegesis must come before appropriation. That does not justify, however, ignoring appropriation in favor of exegesis. This may be an old issue, but it deserves a great deal more attention.
Both articles deal inadequately with the primary issue of how we get from "what the text meant" to "what it means". Ward discusses translations, the meaning of words, and literary types and forms, and then concludes with this statement:
It is beyond the scope of this volume to attempt to lay down rules for applying the New Testament to our own day or for judging the present age by the norm of the New Testament. But it may be that the more we understand what it meant, the clearer will be the meaning for today.
Again, unless one already has some experience with the historical approach, the statement is meaningless. This comes close to telling the reader that what the text means for today is really not very important, or that it is self-evident. If this issue is not "in the scope of" an essay dealing with proper method of bible study, where does it belong?71
Willis (twelve years later) corrects this deficiency to some degree, giving a very readable and practical description of proper Bible study in its historical and linguistic context. And then he comes close to addressing our concern. Under the heading "Customs and Abiding Truth"72, he mentions that although "no certain solution" has been found for deciding whether a given biblical command is binding for all time, two observations should be kept in mind: (1) what is essential is the meaning and motives of acts, not just doing acts correctly; and (2) a belief, teaching, or practice does not have to originate in Israel or Christianity to be central to them.
These are useful points as far as they go. But as with Ward's article, unless one already has a grasp of the "historical method", the discussion is too brief to be helpful and the full impact of the historical approach will go right past those who most need to understand it. A more explicit description of how the "historical method" relates to current concerns is needed.
Festschrift for Jack Lewis
Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice, Studies in Honor of Jack P. Lewis,73 was published in 1986, and contains 25 articles (mostly on exegesis) and two bibliographies. According to the back cover, the book is intended for "those who preach, teach, and study the Bible" -- a rather broad spectrum. Many excellent articles in the tradition of Restoration Quarterly are included from well prepared and capable writers, all of whom share a common Restoration heritage.
Nevertheless, it is disappointing that the volume does very little to advance the understanding of interpretive methodology within the context of the Restoration Movement.74 As with the Living Word Commentary introductory essays, this volume is to be criticized not so much for what it has, but what it does not have. A few comments on specific articles will illustrate the point.
(1) Ian Fair's article on "Disciplines Related to Biblical Interpretation" (pp. 31-49) is a very thoughtful overview of three "ruling principles of interpretation": Have right attitudes toward Scripture (presuppositions), control subjectivity and find the meaning (exegesis), and apply the meaning to contemporary life (hermeneutics). Thus, after exegesis, "further ruling principles of interpretation must be developed" to separate the authoritative from the non-authoritative. This sounds promising:
(a) The theologian suggests a hypothesis as to its normative or incidental value;
(b) the theologian evaluates the hypothesis against the overall theological context of Scripture;
(c) the theologian makes a statement as to whether the text under review is normative or incidental; and
(d) the preacher searches for contemporary analogies.
The problem is, these principles are too general to be helpful, and they are somewhat vague. How is one to decide whether a text is normative or incidental? What is one to look for when comparing a hypothesis "against the overall theological context of Scripture"? Also, how are the tasks of the preacher and the systematic theologian related to each other, and what does this say about those who are neither? My concern is the same as before: such general descriptions do not really help anyone who does not already have some insight into working from a historical and theological point of view. Certainly, one can only do so much in an assigned amount of space, but a different point is really at stake. For in this article, while "exegesis" receives eleven pages of description, only one-and-a-half pages (pp. 48-49) are devoted to the four principles of "hermeneutics" (appropriation). When this continually happens in our descriptions of "how to interpret the Bible", it sends a message that application to life is not really all that important.75
(2) Two other articles survey the history of biblical scholarship, Timothy D. Hadley (OT -- pp. 103-116) and Larry Chouinard (NT -- pp. 195-213). These are fine articles, but they ignore Restoration scholarship completely. No doubt this was a conscious decision; this has been a common practice among those interested in scholarship in our movement.76 But what better place than in survey articles could the strengths of Restoration scholarship and goals be represented alongside other methods and movements? The impression that is left by such omissions is that nothing of any significance is to be found in Restoration scholarship -- and that is simply not the case.
(3) The last article to be noted is "Vital Principles and Practices in Hermeneutics" by J. D. Thomas (pp. 307-317). It is not at all surprising, nor out of place, that Thomas reiterates in summary his principles stated more fully in We Be Brethren and Heaven's Window; nor is his recommendation of D. R. Dungan's Hermeneutics as his preference; nor his support for the "Inductive Method"; nor his statement:
The need for logical reasoning sometimes leads the student deeper than mere technical or mechanical rules can take him. Here such matters as commands, inferences and approved precedents of the biblical characters must be considered. (p. 316, my emphasis)
None of this is disturbing. What is disturbing, however, is that one can leave this book believing that it all fits together. There is no dialogue at all between the competing points of view of the rationalist/inductive approach and the historical/contextual approach. And we all lose because of it.
PART III
THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY PERSPECTIVE
A third hermeneutical emphasis began to appear about the same time as (and in connection with) the historical/contextual emphasis just reviewed. This approach points to the "theological centers" in Scripture as the umbrella under which other parts of Scripture are to be interpreted. This concern has seen the least amount of published material until recently,77 although it, too, claims a certain link with the theological interests of early restorationists.78 Three articles in the Restoration Quarterly deserve special mention as offering direct critiques of the rationalist/inductive method early on.
In the first article, "The Restoration Principle: A Critical Analysis", Roy Bowen Ward offers a poignant analysis of the Restoration Principle in which he underscores the importance of recognizing that Christianity is a historical religion, and that the Bible, as we have it, is dependent on historical processes. To show this, he asks whether the early restoration leaders began the movement
because they found the Restoration Principle in the New Testament or because they were reacting to a certain historical situation, viz., disunity among those who called themselves Christians?79
Ward says historical documents suggest the latter. He also notes that the new testament nowhere provides an "explicit scriptural basis for the restoration principle." Nevertheless, christianity, as a historical religion, "must look back since a religion of history is founded on events of the past." As such, "the criterion for religious truth must be in that past event"80, but not only in the event itself, but the interpretation or understanding of that event within history.81 in the final analysis, the plea "back to the bible" (rather than back to the event) depends on the historical process of canonization in the 2nd and following centuries.82
Ward notes that this understanding of Christianity, as a historical religion, has major impact upon traditional Restoration exegesis (what the text meant), and especially upon Restoration hermeneutics (what the text means).83 He suggests that
the results of 19th century exegesis have in some cases been superceded in the present time because `principles of interpretation' have been more greatly refined and because new data has become available.84
Furthermore, according to ward, the currently accepted hermeneutical rules as represented in j. D. Thomas's we be brethren (commands, examples, and necessary inferences), are categories that
are not set forth as a hermeneutic within the text of the NT, but rather they are derived from a certain logical system imposed from outside the text. The question should be raised whether or not this logical system is consonant with the nature of the NT itself. And the presuppositions of this hermeneutic should be discovered and clarified.85
Ward suggests that a better approach is to understand New Testament theology and then to apply the theological insight to current situations. This would involve at least three steps: (1) understanding "the life, thought, and practices of the apostolic churches"; (2) "finding the central and motivating forces of those churches and restoring these to the present church"; and (3) recognizing also "the importance of rites and institutions reflected in the canon of Scripture" (such as believer's baptism, "not simply because some text commands it, but because only believer's baptism is consonant with the general theological understanding of the apostolic churches."86)
The next two articles are by Thomas Olbricht and will be discussed together. They are, "The Bible as Revelation" (1965) and "The Rationalism of the Restoration" (1968).87 Olbricht's major contributions in these articles include (1) his seminal discussions on the philosophical background of Alexander Campbell and his peers; (2) his evaluations of the 19th century inductive method employed by Campbell and his followers, especially as it showed itself in Campbell's view of the Bible as primarily composed of a collection of historical facts; (3) his evaluation of Restoration views of Revelation in light of the larger 19th-20th century theological debate of world-wide scholarship; and (4) his emphasis on biblical theology as the central point from which current-day hermeneutical relevance of Scripture is to be worked out.
In "The Bible as Revelation" (1965), Olbricht argues against the rationalist/inductive approach, in favor of reading the individual facts of the Bible through the great themes of the Bible:
In my opinion Campbell got us headed in the wrong direction. I agree with him in looking at the Bible in a positivistic manner, but I think he was wrong in seeing it as a collection of facts, the unity of which emerges from the individual facts themselves. What he should have done is to raise the question of what are the great themes of the Scriptures of God's love shown in his deeds of sin and salvation and then interpreted the individual facts in that light. . . In spite of expressed fears of those who wish to maintain our traditional hermeneutics I insist that if we took seriously what I have proposed we would be more biblical than ever before. We would not do away with examples and commands, but we would have a manner of looking at them provided for by the unity of the Bible itself..88
All three articles by Ward and Olbricht deal straight-forwardly with the issues involved between the rationalist/inductive and historical/contextual approaches, and broach the question of biblical theology. However, these articles are the exception rather than the rule, even in Restoration Quarterly. Rarely is the hermeneutical issue discussed as forcefully and directly.89 What is more, it is not clear to what extent others of a historical/contextual bent concur with such sentiments: the three articles discussed above more or less stand alone as pioneering efforts in the Churches of Christ towards a more adequate model for determining "what the text means" theologically.
Summary and Evaluation
Of late, a great deal of discussion on both a popular and more technical level has appeared. Inevitably, there is some confusion as an effort is made to sort through the issues at hand, and at times new hypotheses are put forward which are based on positions not entirely thought-out.90 But that is the nature of healthy discussion. Until recently, we have been ever so gently trying to pour new wine into old wine skins, the old wine skins in this case being the older 19th century hermeneutical model. But those wine skins are now ready to burst.
This study has attempted to provide some perspective on the matter. It has argued that three hermeneutical perspectives are represented in what can be called the rationalist/inductive, the historical/contextual, and the biblical theology approaches. These approaches share many common interests, to be sure, but they are different perspectives nonetheless, with different emphases. The second and third approaches are very closely related. The third approach has been the least developed of the three, though it has been consistently pursued by a few through the years, and has come up recently for discussion. Following are some evaluations of the three approaches.
Comparing and Evaluating the Perspectives
(1) The rationalist/inductive perspective, as it has come to exist, is untenable and needs to be reevaluated. First, the view that the three-fold method of interpretation has been more-or-less uneventfully and uniformly handed down till now is simply incorrect. "Necessary Inference" was hammered out in controversy, and was vigorously opposed by conservatives in the mid 19th century. Only in the early 20th century did a developing orthodoxy within the Churches of Christ adopt it as vital for interpreting the Scriptures.
Secondly, the view that the three-fold method of interpretation is a biblical model is incorrect -- it is rather based on philosophical principles and on a faulty view of the nature of the biblical documents. It mitigates against studying the Scriptures in context because in practice it takes as its prime directive the question "What does the Bible require of us?" rather than the prior question, "What does a text mean in its own context?" In short, it does not recognize in practice the validity of distinguishing between and properly relating what the text meant and what it means.
Thirdly, the rationalist/inductive method is methodologically out-dated. Although Campbell's interests in scholarship, history, and the inductive approach could co-exist (since they all were on the cutting edge of scholarship and scientific studies in the 19th century), it is no longer possible for them to co-exist as they have developed in the last hundred years or so. The interest in thoroughgoing inductivism as it has been developed by the rationalist/inductive approach is undermined by the advances in interpretive methodology, namely the literary-historical method. Indeed, the upshot of Ward's and Olbricht's articles is that the restoration plea is not only not dependent on a 19th century method of interpretation, it actually is being harmed by it by holding it back in 19th century forms of argumentation and approaches to the Bible.
Fourthly, the rationalist/inductive method is inconsistent in practicing its specific hermeneutic theory per se. Although it has consistently advocated the grammatico-historical study of the Bible, but has increasingly and uncritically practiced atomistic interpretation (proof-texting). In theory, the grammatico-historical method has been stated quite strongly from Campbell to Thomas. As has been noted, however, Campbell followed the principles more consistently early in his life than he did later, or than many of his successors, since interest turned more and more toward the atomistic style of interpretation in the interest of firming up established positions and recovering biblical patterns.91 By the time of David Lipscomb92 and his student G. C. Brewer,93 proof texting was the dominant practice.
Fifthly, the rationalist/inductive method is inconsistent in its attitude towards the life situations of people. It does not bridge the gap between its practice of focusing on the objective pattern requirements of the absolute perfect will of God and its theoretical proclamation of Christianity as a faith "written on the heart." In practice, the concern for determining pattern authority through command, example, and necessary inference has dominated as the hermeneutical superstructure through which many other biblical and human concerns have been filtered.
Finally, it must be made clear that these criticisms are directed at the method as formulated, not the contents of Scripture itself. That is to say, it is the specific vantage point (perspective) from which commands, examples, and inferences are viewed and used that is the major point of contention, not whether Scripture contains commands, examples, and inferences (or many other things). This is the issue which must be addressed by those who defend the position.
(2) The historical/contextual approach offers a more viable perspective, but has not gone far enough. If the one approach has gone overboard in neglecting world-wide scholarship and advances in hermeneutical theory, this one has its short-comings as well.
First, this approach has remained too aloof from its audience. For all of its advantages and progress (and they have been many), the historical/contextual approach as a whole on the subject of historical exegesis, is more in touch with world-wide scholarship than it has been able to convey its conclusions meaningfully to the churches.94 That is to say, in its desire to tap into its intellectual roots, this approach has not always attended well to the rest of the tree.
Secondly, the historical/contextual method has not been brought in open and clear comparison with the rationalist/inductive approach. The result is that the historical approach has not fully conveyed the message it needs to convey (viz., that it is crucial for a proper reading and application of Scripture), and it has sometimes conveyed a message that it should not want to convey (viz., that it is not concerned with its traditional Restoration hermeneutical heritage). Certainly, the approach has great value. But church members and many preachers still often do not seem to realize what is at stake in this approach to Scripture95 (as found in the Living Word Commentary, for example), and have little if any appreciation for how the approach relates to their Restoration heritage. Instead, they are often unaware that the atomistic approach to Scripture is even being challenged at all.
(3) There has not been enough interest (in print, at least) in pursuing and defining the relationship between history and theology.96 The willingness to stop with historical exegesis and not to pursue the theological ramifications of exegetical work is no longer a viable option. But there will surely be some negative ramifications for looking at the relationship of the two, because cherished theological positions are certain to be challenged. In fact, it should be pointed out clearly that the theological work has been left in the hands of those advocating the rationalist/inductive method. As noted earlier, that approach is more concerned with theology than history and can tolerate a great deal of diversity in the historical arena. That is not true in the theological arena, however.
The result is that the two methods have been working on opposite sides of the street, but have rarely ever talked to each other. It also means that, on a practical level, the theology derived by the rationalist/inductive approach not only dominates and offsets the value of the conclusions of the historical approach, it also prevents any theological work based on such historical studies. That is to say, it mitigates against the search for theological centers in Scripture as advocated by those pursuing a biblical theology. In this way, sacred theological positions are insured and the results of any truly historical or theological study are rendered impotent and irrelevant (or perhaps even "heretical").
So, while the various approaches have overlapping concerns, there are also some fundamental differences. To tip-toe around this question of the relationship of history to theology may be more desirable for the sake of present peace, but it also dooms the interpretive and theological process to stall at accepted (or at least "safe") opinion or at mere historical considerations. The quest for a biblical theology in such an atmosphere is unquestionably retarded.
(4) A final criticism is leveled at both the historical and theological approaches, for, like the rationalist/inductive approach, they have not yet dealt adequately with the question of applying Scripture to people.
First, as noted, the historical approach has basically ignored the subject, but even the theological approach has yet to address it adequately. To take one example, the book, The Worldly Church, in its marvelous passion against the extremes of legalism and need-centered secularism, goes to an extreme of its own: for in one sense, it unfortunately helps to further drive a wedge between the Bible and people by overemphasizing the place of the Bible and devaluing the daily, temporal needs of people. The book comes close, in fact, to advocating a renewed "text-centeredness."97
Certainly, this is not the point of the authors, and I wish to aver that I understand the point: the secular spirit is indeed devastating. The church simply cannot follow the secular whims of the moment and lose the gripping and demanding call to the cross.98 But even at that, the concluding statement on "authentic Christian ministry" is pale at best:
If we want to do a Christian work, we must learn to hear the ultimate need behind every temporal need, . . . And having heard, we must proclaim the Ultimate Answer which all men and women, in whatever straits or circumstances, need to hear. (p. 92)
Certainly, our primary concern must be for the need of the soul and we must work with people from that perspective. But on the other hand, any motivation to deal with real-life temporal needs is blunted when this sentiment of the ultimate need is set in the context of so many blistering attacks against "endless sermons on how to have happy marriages, on how to cope with drugs, and even on how to achieve success in the world" (p. 8), and against the efforts of some "to address the endless `needs' of the secular society's casualty list . . .[including] failed marriages, soaring abortion rates, crime, delinquency, suicide, drug addiction, nervous stress, mental breakdowns, and the disorientation of our youth" (p. 13). It almost sounds as if the only legitimate need people have is their ultimate need, and that is all we really should be concerned with, except perhaps with some good Christian ministries "to families, to the infirm, to the aged, and to the suffering who need our aid" (p. 9). Even when set against other more positive statements,99 one does not feel too compelled to deal with real people in real pain, hurt, and sin. I find the emphasis overdrawn and even misleading.
Again, I am sympathetic to the desire to pull back on the reins of a movement which is showing signs of running away with itself. But I do not think it is wise to pull the bit through the back of the horse's mouth. People and their life predicaments stand very close to Jesus' view of God. But they never have in our theology, except in a theoretical or ancillary way.
Secondly, the approach by way of the theological centers of Scripture needs to be more adequately defined. It is still somewhat vague to assert a hermeneutical principle based on the "theological centers of Scripture, God's mighty deeds that give everything else its significance and shape."100 Certainly, this is an important area to explore. But finding those theological centers is not always as easy as the theory sounds. Which center, if any, should be the center of the church today? Are all the great themes of Scripture of equal value? Are the great themes of the Old Testament101 as important as those of the New Testament? Should the central Pauline themes be "more central" than those of Matthew or Luke or the Prophets?102 There is a great deal to be done on this.
Suggestions for Future Work
Finally, I want to make a few suggestions for future work:
(1) We need to move boldly and openly into a discussion of proper hermeneutic theory and practice. And we should not expect easy or quick solutions to the complex problems in front of us.103 To this end, in the summer of 1989, a Seminar on Biblical Hermeneutics was established in connection with the annual Christian Scholars Conference. Its purpose is to pursue this question, to encourage research in the area, and to provide a forum for discussion of the topic.104
(2) We need to develop new models for teaching people how to read the Bible. Against some who argue that new models should be avoided, lest we put our trust in systems and formulas, a model simply provides an understandable example of how to go about proper Bible study and how to avoid improper Bible study. Part of the power, in fact, of the rationalist/inductive method has been its ability to package a memorable procedure. Part of the weakness of the other perspectives discussed is the vagueness of their approaches. Can only scholars read the Bible? Surely not. Then finding ways of helping people read the Bible properly should be considered a legitimate concern.
(3) We need to deal with the hermeneutical question specifically as it relates to our Restoration tradition. A good place to begin is with the three articles by Ward and Olbricht. Although they are cited at times by individuals doing historical studies, we have not followed-up on their suggestions.
(4) We need to participate more energetically in the broader hermeneutical debate in biblical scholarship. On the whole, we have not been in dialogue with world-wide scholarship on the question of the interpretation of Scripture. Concepts such as canonical criticism, comparative midrash, reactualization, contextualization, supracultural, the hermeneutical circle, horizon, and others are still "Greek" to us and do not seem to have any significant impact on how the Bible is read.105 It is not that we should simply fall in line with everyone or anyone else, necessarily, but we should at least be conversant with current trends. One important question to ask here, for example, is the viability of a "Biblical Theology" movement. Such an emphasis has waned in broader circles and we should ask whether even this theological perspective has been already tested and found wanting.
(5) Finally, we need to address the issue of relating the Word to life, including the relationship of history to theology. That is, we need to deal with the hermeneutical question in its whole range, both from the standpoint of exegesis and appropriation.
May we advance in our quest to become scribes trained for the Kingdom of Heaven.
What I have called the rationalist/inductive perspective originated in the early emphases of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and with the conservative wing of the Disciples in the latter part of the 19th century. The approach has emphasized a thoroughgoing inductivism and the grammatico-historical approach to studying the Bible, based on its view of the Bible as containing (in propositional statements) the pattern requirements of God, to be recovered through commands, examples, and necessary inferences. J. D. Thomas has offered the most recent and complete restatement of the approach. Whereas my description of this school of thought is surely limited in scope and is inadequate as a comprehensive depiction of those who have practiced the method, it nonetheless has attempted to identify some of the most important methodological concerns and practices of the approach.
ENDNOTES
1Fifth edition. This article has appeared in three different versions:
The first, read at the 1987 Christian Scholars conference (Pepperdine);
the second, a greatly revised and expanded two-part article in April of 1990, put in the CSC papers;
the third -- this present article (June 1990) -- a revision for the journal Christian Studies (but never published);
and the fourth, abridged, published in Christian Studies 11:1 (1990) 18-40 in an abridged format.
This present article, the fifth edition, is expanded over the fourth edition.
Earlier drafts of this paper (1987, 1988, 1989) carried the subtitle, "An Assessment of the Hermeneutical Impasse in Churches of Christ, and indicated the paper was to be published in two installments in Restoration Quarterly. This Journal officially accepted them for publication on May 20, 1988. However, for reasons undisclosed to me, the Journal informed me in April 1990 that the articles would not be used.
2The Worldly Church: A Call for Biblical Renewal, (Abilene: ACU Press, 1988) p. 59.
3The Worldly Church, p. 72. This being the case, the cross of Christ, and it's scandal, would be central to our preaching and teaching, and this would in turn impact our life in the Spirit, our Worship, and our quest for holy living (pp 69-87).
4The Worldly Church, p. 72.
5In this paper, I use "hermeneutics" in its broad, classical sense to refer to the whole interpretive process. It should be noticed, however, that it is fashionable to use the term to refer quite specifically to theological appropriation, or "what the text means" See, for example, Abraham Malherbe "An Introduction: The Task and Method of Exegesis" and Don McGaughey "The Problem of Biblical Hermeneutics" in Restoration Quarterly 5 no 4(1961):170, 252; and Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).
6The "rationalist/inductive perspective" refers to that philosophy of interpretation which hails especially from the mid-19th century; which attempts to reconstruct the original pattern of the nature and organization of the "ideal" New Testament church, through what can best be called "thoroughgoing inductivism" (i.e., through detailed attention to inductive reasoning and stated in propositional statements); whose specific method of establishing biblical authority is through specific commands or precepts, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences; and which respects the silence of the Scriptures in the various "articles of faith, acts of worship, and principles of morality." (Campbell, Christian System, pp. 72-73.) The emphasis upon the inductive method as the proper method of biblical interpretation is to be seen especially in works like Thomas Campbell's, "Declaration and Address" (1809); Alexander Campbell's "Sermon on the Law" (1816), Christian System (1835), and Christianity Restored (1835); J. S. Lamar's The Organon of Scripture (1860); Robert Milligan's Reason and Revelation (1867); D. R. Dungan's Hermeneutics (1888); and J. D. Thomas's two books, We Be Brethren (1958) and Heaven's Window (1974). The designation "rationalist/inductive perspective" is intended as descriptive of major concerns, rather than as a pejorative reference. It should also be noted that whereas previous drafts of this paper have referred to the "Rationalist/Inductive School," the designation was often considered by readers as too isolationist or perhaps pejorative. Such was certainly not my intention, even though I still believe that those who have advocated this approach may properly be designated as a "school of thought," moreso than the other perspectives outlined in this paper.
7The "historical/contextual perspective" refers to that approach within the Churches of Christ, beginning around 1950, which is interested in interacting more seriously with world-wide scholarship and in advocating an historical approach that is guided by contextual restraints. Interestingly enough, this emphasis on scholarship and the Bible as history also hailed from Alexander Campbell, but had by-and-large receded around the middle part of the 19th century as attention turned more toward the inductive approach and the inclusion of necessary inference. Campbell's emphasis on the Bible as being primarily "history" (rather than primarily "propositional") was underscored by Abraham Malherbe at the 1986 Pepperdine Lectureship (on tape -- "How to Study the Bible"): "I think that where [some brethren] slip a cog, is that they conceive of the Bible as a collection of propositions. And they are still concerned with all kinds of stuff from Aristotle, but they have never quite understood Campbell when he speaks of the historical element. ... He stressed history. And in that respect, he shared more with modern biblical study than he did with John Locke." The designation "historical/contextual perspective" is, like the previous designation, intended as descriptive of major concerns of the approach.
8The "biblical theology perspective" refers to an approach to Scripture which looks primarily for the theological centers of Scripture from which Scripture sets out its own parameters for interpretation. See especially Tom Olbricht, "The Rationalism of the Restoration" Restoration Quarterly 11 no 2(1968):77-81; more recently see Allen, Hughes, and Weed, The Worldly Church; and Allen, The Cruciform Church.
9The question is not whether people think in inductive and deductive categories, but the specific use to which those categories are put by those who work from a rationalist/inductive perspective in the command, example, necessary inference model. Note, for example, the statement of E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation p. 89: "The correct determination of implications is a crucial element in the task of discriminating a valid from an invalid interpretation. Although disagreements between interpreters are sometimes total, . . . more often their disagreements center on details of implication. . . The principle by which we can discover whether an implication belongs to a meaning turns out to be the concept of intrinsic genre." Despite the generally similar sounding nature between Hirsch's quote and the rationalist/inductive approach, Hirsch outlines a completely different approach.
10J. D. Thomas, for example, one of the chief proponents of what I am calling the rationalist/inductive perspective received his PhD degree in New Testament and Early Christian Literature from the University of Chicago in 1957, and has served as president of the Corporation Board of the Restoration Quarterly.
11Allan McNichol, "Theological Method on the Bible Among Churches of Christ: A Proposal" (Pepperdine University: unpublished paper offered to the Christian Scholars Conference, 1989), pp. 1-2, offers a friendly review of my previous draft of this paper. In a critical note he says: "If there were a point where I would have some difficulty with Collier it would be in the impression which he leaves that it is the failure to have an adequate hermeneutical method for interpreting Scripture that has led to our current theological malaise. In my view, it is not hermeneutics, but theological method that stands a the root of our problems. No hermeneutical model or method, in and of itself, especially in this age of cultural pluralism, is capable of leading us out of our current theological difficulties" (p. 3). In response, it was not my intention to leave the impression that hermeneutics is the one and only "cure-all" for whatever it is that ails us. On the other hand, it was my intention, and so it remains, to point to biblical hermeneutics as an area of needed discussion. For surely, our hermeneutical perspective will affect our theological outcome to some degree, as our theological perspective will affect our hermeneutical approach. It is a tangled web and cannot be approached simplistically.
12Thomas, We Be Brethren p. 6
13Thomas, We Be Brethren p. 6 (emphasis mine).
14Michael W. Casey, "The Development of Necessary Inference in the Hermeneutics of the Disciples of Christ/Churches of Christ" (PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1986). I am heavily indebted to Casey's work and in this section I am to a large degree summarizing his conclusions. (See now his two summary articles in Restoration Quarterly, Fall 1989, Winter 1990.) In addition to his work, the last decade or so has seen a number of studies on the history of interpretive methodology within the Restoration Movement. To give two examples, Charles W. Zenor's 1976 Th.D. dissertation entitled, "A History of Interpretation in the Church of Christ: 1901-1976" (Iliff School of Theology) examined the interpretive similarities between David Lipscomb, G. C. Brewer, and J. D. Thomas. More recently, in 1983, Robert Woodrow's ACU MA thesis entitled, "The Nature of Biblical Authority and the Restoration Movement," not only traced the philosophical influences on Thomas and Alexander Campbell, but also identified seven fundamental emphases about the authority of Scripture in eleven authors, including Alexander Campbell, Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Errett, J. S. Lamar, J. W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb, D. R. Dungan, James H. Garrison, G. C. Brewer, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and J. D. Thomas.
15Casey ("Development" pp. 60-64) underscores that the rejection of inferences was based most directly on a wholesale adaptation of the Baconian inductive method. Classic Aristotelean syllogistic logic (from which `necessary inference' was mainly derived and upon which much then-current theological discussion depended) was deemed outmoded and nothing more than "a venerable piece of antiquity." On that basis, the Campbells originally (prior to 1830) regarded necessary inference as important only to show human reason, but it could never be considered binding. The new "inductive method" was regarded as the death-blow to the older method of reasoning.
16So called by Casey.
17Casey, "Development" p. 385. Whately's Elements of Logic (1826) and Elements of Rhetoric. Casey points out that, "The intellectual model for this shift was the same theory that the Old School Presbyterians used to bolster their theological program in response to the New School theology." (p. 125)
18This point of view was then worked out in detail by both faculty and students of Bethany College in major works on hermeneutics: Moses Lard's Review of Campbellism Examined (1857), J. S.. Lamar's The Organon of Scripture (1860), Robert Milligan's Reason and Revelation (1867), and later, D. R.. Dungan's Hermeneutics (1888).
19Apparently, Moses Lard and J. W.. McGarvey became the conduits into the conservative wing for the acceptance of necessary inference: "A few conservatives who were trained under Campbell at Bethany (Moses Lard and J. W.. McGarvey) recognized that while inference could be used to justify `innovations' it also could strengthen the arguments of many of the conservative sectarian positions. They began to implement necessary inference to argue for sectarian causes, a practice that gradually more and more of the conservatives were to take up." (Casey, "Development" p. 370)
20See the excellent reviews on this period for Old Testament scholarship by Tony Ash, "Old Testament Studies in the Restoration Movement" (four parts) in Restoration Quarterly 9-10(1966-67); and for New Testament scholarship, James Thompson, "New Testament Studies and the Restoration Movement" in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4(1982):223-32.
21Both Tony Ash and James Thompson (see previous footnote) note that while there were a few exceptions, the broader arena of worldwide scholarship was ignored. Notable exceptions include McGarvey's The Authorship of Deuteronomy and Milligan's Hebrews.
22G. C. Brewer, Foundation Facts and Primary Principles, (1949), p. 146 as cited in Woodrow, p. 131.
23David Lipscomb was the driving force behind the series, having made personal notes on the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles. Unable to bring the project to completion because of failing health, he enlisted J. W. Shepherd, who in turn enlisted others: H. Leo Boles, John T. Hinds, and C. E. W. Dorris. The first volume, Romans, was published in 1933. During the next nine years, nine more volumes were published covering each of the Gospels, Acts, each of the Pauline Epistles, and Revelation. Lipscomb's personal notes and his relevant material previously published in the Gospel Advocate were included in brackets throughout each of the volumes except Luke, Acts, and Revelation. The final four volumes were forty more years in coming. With the exception of the reprinting of Milligan's commentary on Hebrews in 1971, all remaining volumes were written by Guy N. Woods between 1953 and 1981.
24The following assessment is a mere probe into an area that deserves a great deal more attention. A detailed comparative study of the interpretive methodology among the various commentators of the Gospel Advocate Commentaries would be useful as well as interesting.
25J. W. Shepherd, Romans (1933), p. iv.
26Guy N. Woods, James (1964), p. 7 [his italics]. See also a similar comment of his in John (1981), p. 4.
27David Lipscomb in H. Leo Boles, Matthew, (1936), p. 82.
28Guy N. Woods, James, (1964), p. 74 [his emphasis].
29"The imperative in the New Testament . . . is by no means confined to commands, but also expresses a request or a concession." F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 195.
30H. Leo Boles, Acts (1941), p. 318.
31J. W. Shepherd and David Lipscomb, 1 Corinthians (1935), p. 249.
32H. Leo Boles, Luke, (1940), p. 317.
33David Lipscomb in H. Leo Boles, Matthew, (1936), p. 143.
34H. Leo Boles, Matthew, (1936), pp. 388-389.
35Or, how does the Lord require us to make melody? Again, though he does not specifically ask this question, it is nonetheless the question he addresses.
36I would like to make it clear that I am not arguing here either for or against the use of instrumental music either in or out of "public worship." I am rather concerned about procedure in exegetical method.
37J. W. Shepherd, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians (1939), pp. 108-09 [emphasis mine].
38Thomas, We Be Brethren, pp. 19ff.
39Thomas, We Be Brethren pp. 57, 90. Milo Hadwin's The Role of NT Examples as Related to Biblical Authority (1974), specifically challenged the conclusions of Thomas's We Be Brethren, maintaining that only commands establish pattern authority. Thomas responded at length in Heaven's Window, pp. 107-125.
40Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 1
41"It is unthinkable that man could have free will without . . . some kind of guidance and instructions about what is expected of him." (Heaven's Window, p. 3.) That, of course, is the Bible, which "consists of a propositional message, sent from God's mind to man's mind . . ." The revelation is "clear-cut, definite and objective so that there need be no vagueness or misunderstanding whatever." (Heaven's Window, p. 4.)
42Since Scripture is God's Word to man, the concept of "pattern authority" becomes vital. "By the term `pattern authority' we mean that the revelation message conveys to man's mind in a `blueprint' fashion exactly what God wishes man to know and do and be. In the same way that a blueprint is a constant reference to a builder and reads the same to everyone who has the ability to interpret blueprints, the pattern concept of Biblical revelation means that [the Bible] is a continuing spiritual reference to all logically-capable truth-seekers; it will read the same to all of them and with it one can learn exactly what God wishes him to know." (Heaven's Window, p. 4.)
43The Bible not only contains patterns (Heaven's Window, pp. 1, 32-34, 68-69, 73, et. al.), but is itself a pattern from God (pp. 4-6, 40 et. al.) For that reason, the means of discovering "pattern authority" is vitally important for all Christians at all times, and is to be discovered inductively. "The sum total of all this is that `commands establish patterns without question'; but so do necessary inferences, when the conclusion is absolute and is necessary; yet when examples are known to have underlying commands (by necessary inference) they also will establish patterns, but only then! . . . In the final analysis, therefore, commands, necessary inferences, and `binding examples' are all one and the same thing -- as far as the force of logic is concerned." (Heaven's Window, p. 104: Quotation marks and italics are his).
44The Bible primarily consists of facts, and through the "Inductive-Deductive Method" (We Be Brethren, p. 16.) those facts can be synthesized to arrive at general teachings from Scripture: "For example, if the question is `What is the mode of Christian baptism?', all the facts (passages) can be considered, then, seeking to know the truth on the subject, the mind will seek an hypothesis which `squares' with all passages that mention baptism. Immersion will leap into the mind, and when checked against all the facts will be found to be the only possible `mode' of baptism that agrees with all of them. Nowhere does the Bible flatly state that `immersion is the only mode of Christian baptism,' but the inference, which produced the hypothesis of immersion only, makes it possible for us to know the Biblical truth on the matter." (Heaven's Window, p. 89, all quotation marks, parentheses, and italics are his.)
45Thomas gives chapter 12 entirely to a summary of D. R. Dungan's Hermeneutics, which he regards as a "classic in its field to those who follow the grammatico-historical method and who seek ultimately to arrive at the common mind in Biblical interpretation." (Heaven's Window, p. 86.) Important here is "the common mind" which harks back to Thomas Campbell's philosophical underpinnings, and which according to Thomas "means simply that normal men will come to agreement if they sincerely and reasonably and thoroughly examine all the facts that can logically affect a given problem." (Heaven's Window, p. 53.)
46Like Campbell's seven rules published in the Christian System (1835) for reading the Bible like any other book, and his larger Christianity Restored (1835), and especially like the six basic rules in Dungan's Hermeneutics (1888), Thomas advocates reading the Bible in its historical and literary context. (Heaven's Window, p. 85.) Furthermore, for Thomas, the "grammatico-historical method" is identical to what Dungan calls the inductive method: "Actually, they are the same thing. . . So whether one calls it the scientific method, the grammatico-historical method, the inductive method, or the common sense method, the point is that each is striving to arrive at the common mind through the same methodology used by the others." (Heaven's Window, p. 87.)
47Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 85.
48Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 73.
49Thomas, We Be Brethren, p. 7, (his capitalization).
50Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 24 (his emphasis).
51Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 76.
52At least not by Thomas.
53Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 76.
54Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 76.
55Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 105 (my emphasis).
56Thomas, Heaven's Window, p. 104. "We are claiming that when an example does establish a pattern, it really `changes itself into a command' as the force of `implying' indicates. But before all this is true, and the example teaches binding matters, the `implication' of the underlying `command' must be necessary, and it must be an absolute and unquestioned implication." [His quotes and emphasis]
57See the special issue on Restoration scholarship in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4(1982), especially the studies by Everett Ferguson, Tony Ash, and James Thompson. See also Ash's earlier thorough studies on Old Testament scholarship in Restoration Quarterly 9-10(1966-67).
58In other words, those who espoused the "historical method" saw themselves as standing firmly in the tradition of Campbell a century or more earlier who also emphasized historical context. Note W. E. Garrison's remarks in Religion Follows the Frontier (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931), p. 258: "The first generation leaders had included a few men who had wide intellectual contacts. The second generation had fewer. And as the Disciples multiplied colleges, manned chiefly by their ministry so far as they were trained at all, a process of intellectual inbreeding ensued which resulted in an unfortunate isolation from the main currents of religious thought and scholarship." Quoted in Tony Ash, "Old Testament Studies in the Restoration Movement -- No. IV", Restoration Quarterly 10 no 3(1967):158.
59I.e., an approach to the Bible that placed a great deal of importance on interpretation within historical context. Although the rationalist/inductive perspective also proclaimed this as part of its interest, this paper has attempted to show that the emphasis was more theoretical than real. The major difference between these two approaches is in the degree to which this principle of historical context is applied: the one being more prone to proof-texting, the other to discussing textual matters according to historical context.
60As noted earlier in this paper, this approach shared many of the convictions of the rationalist/inductive philosophy (e.g., a high view of the biblical text, a commitment to Restoration, etc.), and it would be incorrect to assert that anyone had set out to do anything other than to be faithful interpreters of the Bible.
61Restoration Quarterly, "New Testament Studies and the Restoration Movement" 25 no 4(1982):230.
62So described by Abraham Malherbe, "Introduction" in The World of the New Testament, vol 1 of The Living Word Commentary (R. B. Sweet Pub. Co., 1967) p. 3. As defined in my previous article, the historical method advocates an historical approach to the Bible that is guided by contextual restraints, interacting seriously with world-wide scholarship.
63Particularly important for interpretive method were the numerous contributions of J. W. Roberts; the challenging contributions by Abraham Malherbe, including (among others) "The Task and Method of Exegesis", two articles under the rubric "Through the Eye of the Needle" (reflecting his conviction that "philology is the eye of the needle through which every theological camel must enter the heaven of theology"), and "Surveying New Testament Research". Also important were the detailed articles by Frank Pack on textual criticism, and the many articles by Everett Ferguson and Jack Lewis on church history, biblical backgrounds, and other studies. These are but a few of those who wrote in the early issues.
64These volumes are wholly given over either to biblical books: book of Acts (1960), Gospel of John (1963), book of Genesis (1980); or to other topics of interest in the Restoration Movement which directly or indirectly relate to biblical hermeneutics: baptism (1957), the Church (1958), apologetics (1962), 2nd century Christianity (1968), English translations (1974), and personalities of the Restoration Movement (1977)
65Started by the R. B. Sweet Publishing Co.; now in the hands of ACU Press. To date, the entire New Testament has been published, and six volumes of the Old Testament have appeared.
66John T. Willis, "Rewarding Bible Study" in The World and Literature of the Old Testament, vol 1 of The Living Word Commentary (OT) (Austin: R. B.. Sweet Co., 1979).
67J. W. Roberts, James; Richard Oster, Acts; Carl Holladay, 1 Corinthians; Jack P. Lewis, Matthew; Michael Weed, Ephesians.
68James 1:19; Acts 20:7; Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; and Eph 5:19.
69"How to Study the New Testament" by Roy Bowen Ward, 1967; and "Rewarding Bible Study" by John T. Willis, 1979.
70Perhaps it was deemed wise from an editorial standpoint to avoid direct challenge so as not to fan the flames of undesirable and unnecessary controversy. Such controversies were already taking place in other forums (e.g., Mission Journal).
71See the very negative review of Ward's article by George Howard Restoration Quarterly 11 no 2(1968):116-117
72Willis, "Rewarding Bible Study" p. 35.
73(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) ed. by F. Furman Kearley, Edward Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley. I am somewhat reluctant to comment on this book since it is intended to honor one who was and continues to be my teacher, and who has influenced me tremendously. But I will proceed nonetheless, knowing that he would expect me to do so.
74Since there is no foreword to give the editors' goals, one must be careful not to second-guess them. But it is odd that such a book, on hermeneutics no less, in honor of such a strong Restorationist as Jack Lewis, would leave out issues so directly relevant to its own heritage and commitment, even if the book was intended for a so-called "wider audience". Since such home-grown concerns do show up at places (e.g., Carroll D. Osburn, "Interpreting Greek Syntax", esp. p. 237), one wonders why they could not have been more consistently represented by editorial design.
75But then, at least Dr. Fair has chosen to say something about the area! It is often overlooked entirely.
76A notable exception is Jack Lewis, "The New Testament in the 20th Century", Restoration Quarterly 18 no 4(1975):193-215.
77On the other hand, Thomas Olbricht has been persistent in his pursuit of this topic. See, for example, "Theology of the Old Testament" in The World and Literature of the Old Testament, (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1979), pp. 296-345; "Biblical Theology and the Restoration Movement" Mission Journal April, 1980; "The Theology of Genesis" Restoration Quarterly 23 no. 4(1980):201-17; He Loves Forever (Abilene: 1985); and various popular forums. For other recent discussions of the topic see Allen, Hughes, and Weed, The Worldly Church, especially chapter five. For example, Monroe Hawley, The Focus of Our Faith: A New Look at the Restoration Principle, (Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1985; Allen, Hughes, and Weed, The Worldly Church (1988); Allen, The Cruciform Church (1990).
78As seen, for example, in Alexander Campbell's Christian System, 1835.
79Roy B. Ward, "The Restoration Principle: A Critical Analysis" Restoration Quarterly 8 no. 4(1965):198
80Ward, "The Restoration Principle" p. 200.
81Ward, "The Restoration Principle" p. 201.
82Ward, "The Restoration Principle" pp. 204-208. "Nevertheless, it remains a historical fact that we call a certain 27 writings `Bible' because the sub-apostolic church called them `Bible.' The validity of the motto `Back to the Bible' rests in part on this canonization activity." (p. 208)
83Ward uses the term "hermeneutics" in its narrow sense to refer to "what the text means" rather than to the exegetical process itself.
84Ward, "The Restoration Principle" pp. 208-209 (his emphasis)
85Ward, "The Restoration Principle" p. 209.
86Ward, "The Restoration Principle" p. 209.
87Thomas Olbricht, "The Bible as Revelation," Restoration Quarterly 8(1965):211-230; "The Rationalism of the Restoration" 11 no 2(1968):77-88. See also his very important article, "Biblical Theology in the Restoration Movement", Mission Journal, 13(1980):4-9. In my opinion, the article "The Bible as Revelation" (1965) is one of the most important articles ever published on Restoration hermeneutical methodology, and is as appropriate now as it was when it was first published.
88Olbricht, "Revelation" p. 229. Three years later (1968), in his article, "The Rationalism of the Restoration", Olbricht raised two objections to Campbell's approach to Scripture: (1) the Lockean approach to Scripture was the wrong approach to adopt, because viewing the Bible as a collection of facts leads to atomistic interpretation; and (2) "the effort to separate reason and facts from emotion" when coming to faith in Christ was wrong. (Olbricht, "Rationalism" p. 87)
89Although he does not go materially past the contributions of Ward and Olbricht, another important article is Russ Dudrey's "Restorationist Hermeneutics Among the Churches of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?", Restoration Quarterly 30 no 1(1988):17-42 (published after the completion of the present study). Dudrey argues that we must "read the Bible first as historians, then as missionaries, then as theologians." (p. 40) The New Testament writings "are not abstract treatises of systematic theology written in the quiet confines of the study." They are rather "missionary correspondence[s]" written "from on the field and in the trenches of the spiritual battle to fellow-soldiers also on the field and in the trenches." (p. 41) To read them properly, we must think more like missionaries than scholastics.
90This is not to criticize the efforts, though I wonder about the forums sometimes chosen for them. Two examples from the Pepperdine Lectureship will illustrate. In 1986, Mike Armor, "Interpreting the Word", suggests a reevaluation of four concepts: the constitutional nature of the New Testament, the silence of the Scriptures, the New Testament use of the Old Testament, and inspiration. In the process, (1) he asks too many questions for the audience he was addressing for which he has neither answers nor suggestions. For a popular setting, the questions (which are good questions) should be accompanied with at least plausible and well considered suggestions. And (2) he goes the wrong way on the subject of the New Testament use of the Old Testament, even though again he mainly asks questions. The issue of proper hermeneutics does not turn around New Testament hermeneutical methodology. We will do better to look at Christ's hermeneutical attitude. On the other hand, in 1987 Kregg Hood "Scriptural or Unscriptural: How Can I Know?" argued that the Bible "authorizes that which is consistent with biblical principles." The effort, then, is to derive biblical principles by way of inductive reasoning. To achieve this, he offered as a new interpretive model a fully developed, four-level hermeneutical pyramid consisting of (from the top down): examples, commands, other biblical material (culture, backgrounds, etc.), and biblical principles. While Hood makes some good points, his approach nevertheless has several major flaws, the chief one being that it is just one more external system placed over the text whereby the supreme ruler ends up being, not biblical theology, but inductive reasoning. (I understand he has since altered his approach somewhat.)
91It should not be supposed that this was peculiar to the Restoration Movement. On the impact of philosophical and theological discussion on the broader religious scene, see Jack Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979); Theodore D. Bozemann, Protestants in an Age of Science: The Baconian Ideal and Antebellum American Religious Thought (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977); and George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
92Cf. Zenor, "A History of Biblical Interpretation in the Church of Christ: 1901-1976" (1976) pp. 96-99, 234, 251: "In actual practice, Lipscomb not only ignored the writer's milieu but the recipients' situation as well." Woodrow (p. 115) says that although Zenor's comment is correct for Lipscomb's topical discussions and Gospel Advocate articles, it is not as accurate with regard to Lipscomb's biblical commentaries. However, the present study has shown that at least in some areas of major concern, even the commentaries are guided more by dogmatic concerns rather than historical ones.
93Zenor, "History" p. 155.
94Certainly, the churches bear responsibility for what they are willing (or unwilling) to hear, but the buck cannot be so easily passed. Perhaps this at least partially explains what Tony Ash described in 1981 (published in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4(1982):220.): "Has the interest on the part of [Old Testament] scholars filtered down to the brotherhood at large? Investigation of the two best known papers, Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, was discouraging, for no evidence of the impact of Old Testament studies could be discovered. Even Mission Magazine had little to offer in this area." Ash goes on to point out that influence was better seen in the Sweet Publishing Co., Biblical Research Press, and especially Restoration Quarterly.
95It is unfortunate that a few alarmists have conjured up the phrase "new hermeneutic" and have attempted to sabotage the discussion through misinformation and innuendo. It is a shame that honest discussion cannot be held on such a vital topic as this, without a great deal of posturing on the part of a few who wish, or so it seems, to uphold the status quo without even knowing what the questions of the debate are. The phrase "New hermeneutic" is nothing more than a tasteless misnomer devised and used to spread distrust. It should be summarily dropped in the interest of fair discussion. But such is probably too much to hope for.
96Despite comments about this relationship, very little is actually written on it. See Malherbe, "An Introduction: The Task and Method of Exegesis" Restoration Quarterly 5 no. 4(1961):169, "Exegesis is the basic discipline, not only of N. T. studies, but of theology. As to form, theolgy must always be the exegesis of Scripture. Exegesis must govern theology. Theology must not be allowed to rule exegesis, for then this discipline loses its character and becomes eisegesis." The article goes on to clarify methods for exegesis. However, no article appears doing the same for theology. McGaughey's article in the same issue, "The Problem of Biblical Hermeneutics," defines hermeneutics as "the principles upon which the appropriation is accomplished" (p. 252). Yet the article (by design) merely summarizes various perspectives on the topic (Liberal, Neo-Orthodox, Existentialist, Conservative) and does not "present a particular set of hermeneutical rubrics" (p. 251). For more recent discussions on this topic refer to a group of papers at the 1984 Christian Scholars Conference, available through Pepperdine University, particularly: Carroll Osburn, "From Exegesis to Theology as an Exegete"; Lynn Mitchell, "From Exegesis to Theology as a Theologian"; James Thompson, "From Exegesis to Theology to Sermon"; and Rubel Shelly, "Can a Restorationist Do Theology?" and the responses to each of these papers. Now especially see Allan J. McNicol, "Theological Method on the Bible Among Churches of Christ: A Proposal" (Summer 1989). Numerous others are listed in the Christian Scholars Conference Papers Index (vols 1-7, 1981-1987) also available through Pepperdine University.
97Compare two statements: "The identity crisis among Churches of Christ today can be resolved only as we place Scripture at the center of our life together and grapple anew with its message" (p. 91, my emphasis); and: "Today among Churches of Christ . . . we face the challenge of letting the cross stand at the center of all our preaching and teaching" (p. 73, my emphasis). Are the two statements the same?
98Or, as stated by Stephen Neill: "though Jesus Christ can always be made intelligible to the men of every generation, his Gospel will always be a scandal, an offence, except to those who through faith are prepared to accept that destruction of the old order and that renewal of themselves for which the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ stand as the changeless symbols -- an eternal reality firmly planted in the midst of time." Cited from The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986, 2nd ed. by Stephen Neill and Tom Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) p. 146.
99See for example, p. 78: "True Christian worship . . . entails a `return' to the world of the ordinary . . . to reflect God's righteousness, compassion, and justice -- both in the church and in the world."
100The Worldly Church, p. 72.
101See Thomas Olbricht's interesting paragraph ("Theology of the Old Testament", p. 296) on four different groups of scholars who have attempted to define the center of the Old Testament.
102One could get that impression, for example, from the very powerful fifth chapter of The Worldly Church.
103Those who complain that there have been too many assessments of what is wrong, but that "no one has come up with any replacement yet," should do two things: (1) wake up to the complexity of the problem, and (2) join in and help.
104The seminar holds no contract with the Scholars Conference for continued existence, but hopes to be allowed the forum over the next several years at least.
105Of course, this criticism does not apply to everyone. But as a fellowship, it cannot be said that we are even part of any significant discussion on the subject, let alone making any impact on one.
Collier: Hermeneutical Perspectives (Rev. June 1990)
Article Info:
Bringing the Word to Life:
An assessment of hermeneutical practices in Churches of Christ to 1990
Gary D. Collier
Pasadena, California
June 1990 [See footnote 1]
