|
My friend Al Maxey has asked me to consider a paper he wrote in which he presents an alternative to CENI (Command, Example & Necessary Inference), and tell him where and how it is flawed. (I don’t like the idea of showing someone where he is wrong as much as I like pointing out what is right, so that I shall endeavor to do.) In his paper Al condemns the idea that where God is silent (regarding our worship) we must be silent, while at the same time contending for the need for authority. Our discussion began when I read and replied to his article “Contentiously Contending for Silence” on a Church of Christ Facebook group. But the article to be discussed (from zianet.com) is called “Another Hermeneutic.” http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx126.htm
When speaking of CENI, Al wrote:
“As many know, I do not believe this to be the best methodology available to us. Indeed, I feel it to be fatally flawed as employed by its proponents, and believe the adherents of this hermeneutic have left the One Body horribly fragmented into countless feuding factions in the wake of their differing deductions and assumptions which they far too frequently feel compelled to bind upon others as universal LAW.”
First, CENI is both misunderstood and misrepresented. For example, Larry Kinsler wrote: “C.E.N.I. is a hermeneutic that the church of Christ denomination employs to analyze doctrines of the Bible.”
CENI is not a hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the science and methodology of interpretation. When one uses CENI he is not attempting to interpret scripture. CENI is nothing but a commonsense way to establish authority that has been used throughout the ages when an authority figure, such as God, has spoken; it is used even in the military, and in schools, the government, and the home. Hermeneutics is used to help one understand what the author of a particular passage intended to be understood by the reader. Some hermeneutics are good and some are bad. Good hermeneutics involve the use of rules, such as determining: 1) who the author is; 2) when the document was written; 3) the circumstances involved; 4) and all related passages. After considering these characteristics, one must seek a conclusion that will allow harmony and consistency within the document. When one understands applicable New Testament passages that relate to church actions he can then apply CENI to establish authority. Do people misunderstand the Scriptures? Yes, but it is mainly because they use poor hermeneutics. Do people misuse CENI? Yes, because it involves people’s use of common sense and making judgments. Unfortunately, many despise CENI because they despise either the authority or the conclusions that must be drawn from the Scriptures that are not acceptable to them in light of their own objectives.
Second, Al addressed the matter of silence. Based on some discussion we have had I think we agree that some brethren, in asserting that “silence excludes,” have made an argument that is at least unnecessary. For example, one might say, “God was silent about using cornbread at the Lord’s Supper.” While this is true, the real reason cornbread is not authorized is not because God was silent but because He specified unleavened bread. Unfortunately, some show their misunderstanding of how authority works when they say, “God was silent about using a projector, or an automobile,” etc. While neither of the above is mentioned in the Bible there is no reason to conclude that these items are not authorized – they are. The command to teach authorizes the tools needed – the means and methods of carrying out the command. A projector is such a tool. The command to “go preach” authorizes one to choose methods of travel. An automobile is merely a tool, or means, to help one carry out the general command.
Some accuse Al of being divisive, but I like to think that he has such a strong desire to see unity among disciples (to include denominations) that he has been unable to recognize that his efforts are not scriptural and are counterproductive. While unity is something Jesus prayed for (John 17:21), and it would certainly help the “world to believe,” we must not compromise truth in our effort to achieve unity.
Al wrote, “One's hermeneutic is important, as it will form the basis for that disciple's understanding of God's Word. An inferior hermeneutic will inevitably lead to an inferior theology.”
The above is, of course, referencing CENI, which is not a hermeneutic at all. It is a means to establish authority for what a church may do with assurance that they are pleasing God. While Al, unlike some brethren who hate CENI, does not openly reject authority, he offers what he believes to be a better alternative to the use of CENI, which is THE means of establishing authority. Al wrote, “It is rather pointless, and even irresponsible, to ‘curse the darkness’ if one is unprepared or unwilling to ‘light a candle.’ In other words, if it is my belief that CENI is flawed, then what do I have to offer in its place?!”
Al, CENI is not flawed, but people are. And because they have used bad hermeneutics in studying topics and specific passages, they have come to believe ideas and concepts that cause them to draw conclusions that are divisive. I’m with Al when it comes to dealing with brethren who misunderstand God’s grace and patience and what the Scriptures say about the Christian and forgiveness. They think any and every sin immediately and automatically causes one to fall from grace. Thus, they feel compelled to be dogmatic in not only being right but in binding their views on others – at least those with whom they would offer fellowship.
Al notes the “growing dissatisfaction with CENI among members of Churches (dissatisfaction with need for authority) of Christ” and asserts that “most other groups of disciples within Christendom saw through its flaws long ago and never really embraced it.” The truth is, the “restoration movement” resulted in the conversion of MANY denominational members. They were tired of man-made doctrines and human organizations associated with them and sought simple Christianity, wherein each church is independent and autonomous, desiring to provide book, chapter, and verse for all practices. So, the truth, Al, is that other groups did embrace what was offered, which included the use of CENI to establish authority. Unfortunately, from the beginning, brethren resisted CENI as they sought to follow behavior similar to that which was instrumental in Israel’s downfall. They said, “We want to be like the nations around us. Give us a king.” Many brethren, from the restoration days until now, have wanted to be like the denominations around them, and this appears to be what Al is seeking to accomplish. Rather than helping others to see the light (as was done in the first century, and during the restoration of the 17th century) so they can become one of US, many now seek to make US like others in virtually every way. Those who know “the rest of the story” know that even though God warned the Israelites about the evil that would befall them if they used the “king” system of government, rather than the “judges” system that He had set up, they did what they WANTED to do. God said to Samuel, “They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” The result was not good (1 Sam. 8).
Al’s Proposed Alternative to CENI
The approach to establishing authority that Al proposes is to ask four questions when something is proposed: 1) is it Biblical; 2) is it Non-Biblical; 3) is it Anti-Biblical; and 4) is it Beneficial? Let’s now observe some of his comments and reply to them.
IS IT BIBLICAL?
Al: I am a firm believer in holding up the BIBLE as the source of our ultimate guidance. However, I do not regard the Bible as a LAW book, or book of RULES, the precise practice of which results in justification, sanctification and salvation.
RW: While one who views the Bible as merely a set of rules, or even a law similar to that of the Old Testament, is misguided, we must not go to the other extreme and assert that the Bible contains NO law or NO rules to be obeyed. To so do demonstrates ignorance or disregard for the clear teaching found in Matthew 7:21; Hebrews 5:9; James 1:25, 2:12; and other passages. That the Bible is a guide or road map to heaven is not debatable. We sing “Guide me, oh thou Great Jehovah, lead me through this pilgrim land.” Yet some deny that the Bible is a guide and assert that all that is involved in salvation is grace and faith. I’m happy to confirm that Al teaches to the contrary. We both agree with Billy Graham on this matter. The following is an interesting story from his pin:
https://billygraham.org/answer/is-the-bible-about-right-and-wrong-or-a-guidebook-for-life-and-death/
There’s a stretch of highway going up into the mountains of North Carolina that was under construction for many years. It is rugged terrain. The Department of Transportation had the monumental task of blasting through boulders and mangled tree roots to carve a road. Vehicles were caught in rockslides and temporary road closings. Lights flashed through the night, with marked signs: Proceed with Caution: Danger Ahead, as instructions guided drivers through the winding and twisted maze.
When travelers got to the top of the mountain a sign was posted: “Welcome to the High Country” with another sign that said: “End of Construction.” Travelers were relieved to know they’d arrived safely at their destination.
Life can be a dangerous journey. The destination of the soul is of utmost importance to God, so He offers us daily guidance through His Word, the Bible. Some pay close attention to God’s directions; others ignore them and speed past the flashing lights. But everyone eventually arrives at the final destination: death’s door that leads to eternity either in Heaven or Hell.
The Bible is both an instruction book and a guidebook. Do we really believe that other people can guide us through treacherous terrain, but God cannot? He’s there, watching every move we make. Are we aware of Him? He’s leading the way, and we’re called to “follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:21). Jesus taught that death is a passage for the spirit into the presence of God (Luke 23:46). The psalmist declared, “God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave” (Psalm 49:15). Are you following the caution signs that God has posted throughout His Guidebook? His steps will never lead us astray.
Al: It is my conviction that the Bible is a divine revelation of the nature of our Father; an inspired guide as to how to order our lives in accord with His will.
Al continues: Are there commands given by God in this revelation, this divine "storyline set in history," that are to be obeyed by mankind? Absolutely! And willful disobedience can prove very costly. Few disciples, regardless of their hermeneutic, discount God's clear commands. When God declares "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not," we had better listen! But much of the guidance from above, through this written revelation, speaks more to the hearts and minds of His devoted disciples. Rather than a legalistic "check list," our God provides guiding principles which may be legitimately applied in different ways given the circumstances of one's immediate environment. …It is the principle that is clearly seen to be eternal, not the method of application.
RW: This is where Al begins his endeavor to show that instrumental music in worship is authorized. First, he rejects the command of God to sing (one part of CENI) by refusing to apply an established principle relating to authority that excludes playing. He then appeals to “principle” for the justification. In the following paragraph Al also asserts that what the early Christians did, or did not do (as guided by the apostles), is not important. Thus, he rejects both command and approved example that teach on this specific issue.
“In like manner, the methodology of first century disciples, as they sought to carry out divine principles and precepts within their own times and cultures, would not be binding upon all other disciples throughout time and throughout the globe. Only the precepts and principles would be binding, not the manner in which they were implemented. This is where I part company with the proponents of the CENI hermeneutic, too many of whom seek to bind as an eternal pattern the precise practice of ancient disciples, rather than simply binding the principle or precept undergirding that practice.”
RW: Al needs to understand that those “ancient disciples” were guided by the apostles as they were directed by the Holy Spirit. This means GOD expressed how He wanted things done and the apostles saw to it that they were accomplished according to God’s precept and then put in the record for any in the future who want to follow God’s will. Thus, we apparently are talking about an “eternal pattern” AND a binding principle or precept.
In the next paragraph, Al actually seeks to justify instrumental music (though not mentioned yet) by simply noting that the Bible has addressed it.
“The very first matter to determine is: Is this matter Biblical? What this simply signifies is -- can this matter be found within the pages of the Bible? Does the Lord, at some point within the pages of Scripture, specifically address the issue, question, practice or doctrine? If He does -- if the Lord has spoken -- then all we need do is heed and obey. Thus, the first step in a responsible hermeneutic is to determine if God has spoken!!!”
RW: “At some point”? Really, Al? You just appealed to the Old Testament for authority for a New Testament practice? That is like trying to justify some crime today in the U.S. by appealing to an Indian tribal law that was in effect 300 years ago. Surely you know better than that. The New Testament, not the Old, is our covenant – our law (law of liberty). Just because something is “biblical” that does not mean it is authorized. Your reasoning would allow any of the Jewish practices, such as animal sacrifices and the burning of intense.
Al: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This doctrine is "Biblical." It is clearly declared in the Bible. Some may not believe it, some may argue with it, some may scoff and mock, but none can deny it is in the Bible. For me, if God said it, then I accept it. Period. The question is NOT -- can it be inferred from the Bible, can it be deduced from the Bible, can it be assumed from the Bible, or can it be wrested from the Bible; rather, the question is: is it IN the Bible?! If it is -- if God has clearly and unequivocally spoken on the matter -- then it is BIBLICAL.
RW: Something can be “in” the Bible but at the same time be something that God has not authorized New Testament Christians to follow or practice. For example, Satan tempted Jesus (Matt. 4). Obviously, the idea of tempting Jesus (God) is biblical (it is in the Bible). God clearly and unequivocally spoke on the matter, but to practice it would be sinful. Thus, the first part of Al’s proposed hermeneutic, intended to replace CENI as a “better hermeneutic,” is not only faulty but also absurd and ridiculous.
IS IT NON-BIBLICAL?
Al: Not everything we face as disciples of Christ, however, can be found clearly addressed in the Bible. Indeed, some matters are never mentioned at all. These would fall into the realm of the "NON-Biblical." This simply means that they are not to be found anywhere in the Bible. It does NOT thereby suggest that they are wrong or sinful or "unauthorized" or forever forbidden (the "silence excludes" fallacy). It simply means the Bible is silent about them. This says nothing either for or against them. The matter is absent altogether from the pages of the biblical text. Such biblical absence neither "authorizes" nor "UNauthorizes" the item in question. Thus, one can neither condemn nor condone something simply by virtue of its absence alone. All one can safely say is, "God said NOTHING about it."
Al continues: Examples -- using a pitch pipe or tuning fork to pitch the hymn about to be sung by the congregation. Holding a VBS (Vacation Bible School). Using PowerPoint equipment and presentations in one's teaching. Having a cooled water fountain in the foyer of the building. And we could list literally thousands of other matters about which nothing is ever mentioned in the Bible. These all fall into the category of the NON-Biblical.
RW: Just because something is not mentioned that does not mean it is not biblical or non-biblical. And Al has admitted that such would not mean it is not authorized. “Non-biblical” means “not relating to, derived from, or in accord with the Bible: not biblical” (Merriam Webster). The things in the examples given above are authorized under general commands and thus are biblical. The pitch pipe is authorized under the command to sing – it is an aid to help carry out that command. The VBS is authorized under the command to evangelize and teach – it is a means and method and a choice as to how to get the job done. The use of PP is an aid to help the teacher teach. The water fountain is an expedient – people need water (Numbers 20:8). This argument was designed to discredit CENI by using a false assertion that has become common – often expressed as follows: “We do many things for which we have no authority.” This expression gives the impression that “we” (a congregation) don’t care whether there is authority for what we do, that “we” think God does not care, or that “we” don’t understand the subject (authority).
Bottom line: The question is irrelevant and has no place in any scheme to replace CENI because if something is non-biblical anyone who purports to follow the Bible will reject it.
Is it ANTI-BIBLICAL?
Although the above is one of the four queries Al has proposed to be asked in seeking to determine whether a practice is authorized, I find no real argument with which to agree or disagree. We concur that if something is against Bible teaching it should be rejected.
IS IT BENEFICIAL?
Al: There are many things not mentioned in the Bible, however, that are also not opposed to biblical principles and teachings. If the Bible is silent on some matter, and it can't be clearly shown to be in opposition to guiding biblical principles, does that mean we can then go ahead and do as we please with regard to such? No, not at all. The fact is, sometimes even good things can have a bad effect. Thus, in determining our actions and attitudes, we must ask yet another question of that which is "Non-Biblical" but not "Anti-Biblical" --- would this practice or action be Beneficial to the cause of Christ and the Body of Christ? Will it help or hinder us in the fulfilling of our godly purpose in life? Is it beneficial or detrimental to the growth and edification of the congregation of believers?
RW: Al concludes: “These matters are in our control, and thus we must exercise good judgment.” This is true, but we must understand that before something can be considered expedient it must first be determined to be lawful. Something cannot be expedient if it has been specified or is in the same class as something that has been specified. Expedients are optional and may be used to fulfill a command of God.
AL’S “APPLICATION”
Al: There are many "issues" over which the adherents of CENI have fostered factions in the family of God. If others don't agree with their personal assumptions from their personal perusal of Scripture, then they feel "led of God" to cast these brothers and sisters out of the family. This is shameful. Is there a better way to examine "issues" and challenges and questions in the church? I believe there is.
Al continues: Let's notice a practical application of the above principles of biblical interpretation. I'll put my neck on the proverbial "chopping block" and select the "hot potato" of Instrumental Music, since this seems to be one of the major "issues" facing the church today, and over which disciples are horribly divided. Is the use of instruments, as either an aid or accompaniment to singing in a worship assembly, a practice approved or disapproved by God under the new covenant in Christ? More simply put: If Bertha tinkles the ivories in a corner of the auditorium on Sunday morning as we sing praises to God, are we all sinning and in danger of eternal damnation? This particular issue has divided brethren for generations. It has led to horrendous feuding among spiritual siblings, with combatants on both sides condemning the others to "everlasting torture in the fires of hell." Frankly, I blame, in large part, the fallacious hermeneutic employed in the past which has led to such heart-breaking schism.
RW: While it is true that unnecessary divisions have occurred let’s not be too quick to blame contenders for “CENI,” who rightly hold to the idea that we need authority for what we do collectively. In other words, a practice must be authorized either by a direct command or approved apostolic example or it must be necessarily inferred. When people reject such teaching it gives the appearance of wanting to handle matters differently than the early Christians did, as they were directed by the apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, any schism that occurs could be nothing more than a separation of the sheep and the goats here on earth. God wants his church to be pure; therefore, when brethren refuse to listen to Him and insist on practices and doctrines they want, but which are not authorized, the church is no longer pure. If Jesus addressed such a congregation, as he did in the book of Revelation, His words would be aimed at those who were not altogether pleasing—not necessarily apostate, but on the way if repentance was not forthcoming.
Al: Let's apply this other hermeneutic to the question. Is the use of instruments in corporate worship (as an aid or accompaniment to singing praises unto God) a practice that can be said to be "Biblical"? The answer is YES. The practice is clearly found in Scripture. The redeemed of God under the old covenant practiced such for centuries, and with the obvious approval of God. Indeed, God even commanded it (2 Chronicles 29:25 -- "the command was from the Lord through His prophets"). The Psalms are filled with examples of such (see Psalm 149 and 150, just by way of example). BUT ... has God spoken about the practice, one way or the other, in the New Covenant writings? Has He changed His thinking with regard to what may or may not accompany or aid our singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs? We know He desires for our expression of praise to come from the heart (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), but that is nothing new. He always has!
RW: Just because something is “biblical,” i.e., found somewhere in the Bible, that does not mean it is authorized in the New Testament. Many courses of action are “biblical,” because they are found in the Old Testament, that obviously would not be scriptural for New Testament Christians to practice, such as burning of incense and animal sacrifices.
Al: Is the matter, therefore, "NON-Biblical" with respect to the writings of the New Testament? Well, not entirely. We know that near the end of the first century, in the Revelation given to John, mention is made of musical instruments in the courts of heaven (Revelation 5:8). This, of course, is merely a symbol, but it shows that God was using the symbol of a harp to convey the idea of praise unto Him. It seems odd that He would employ the symbol of an instrument of music to denote heavenly praise, if the actual use of such an instrument on earth in praise to Him would cause one to be lost!! Didn't Jesus teach us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10)? The early disciples also met frequently in the temple courts during the early years, and at times even continued to make vows and offer sacrifices in the temple (and did so without sin). Instruments obviously were used in some of these proceedings. Further, the early disciples sang psalms, some of which actually spoke of instruments used acceptably in praise. Again, wouldn't it be rather odd for a believer to be able to acceptably sing Psalm 150 in the assembly, but if that believer actually practiced what he sang about then he would be lost?!! Very odd. In fact, it borders on the irrational.
RW: Whether or not the use of instrumental music in a local church is pleasing to God is not going to be settled by noting God’s thinking about it in a previous dispensation. And we obviously can’t just skip the dispensation in which we live and appeal to some passage that clearly is related to heaven. We need scripture that is applicable to New Testament Christianity to be sure God’s will is done “on earth as it is in heaven.”
Al: No, I don't think we can really say God is silent on the matter. And yet, on the other hand, He nowhere in the NT writings ever said "Thou shalt use instruments in the worship assembly" or "Thou shalt NOT use instruments in the worship assembly." Thus, with regard to specific instruction on the matter, this is indeed a "NON-Biblical" matter. In the NT writings there is NOTHING said specifically one way or the other.
RW: As Al admits, God has not been silent in NT writings regarding music--something has been said specifically that settles the matter. While the New Testament is not a book of “thou shalt nots” it is a guidebook from God to lead us in the ways He would have us to go. We learn this by reading what the New Testament church did as they were directed or guided by the apostles of Christ. God SPECIFICALLY dealt with the music issue when He instructed Christians to sing. In view of the fact that the early church did not accompany their singing with instruments and the fact that this specific command excludes other kinds of music, it is prudent that church leaders reject the idea that God would be pleased if we used instruments in worship simply because some people like them.
Al: Therefore, we must ask the question: Would such a practice of using instrumental accompaniment be "ANTI-Biblical"? Is there anything about this practice that would constitute sinful rebellion against God and His revealed teaching elsewhere in Scripture? To this I would have to answer NO. I find absolutely no teaching anywhere in the Bible that even hints at divine disapproval of such a practice. There is not one single verse, in either OT or NT writings, that even remotely suggests such a practice is sinful or an abomination to God. Thus, I think one would be very hard-pressed to produce biblical evidence condemning such a practice as sinful in the sight of our heavenly Father.
RW: As I said above, the Bible is not a book of “thou shalt nots.” Just as we must use good hermeneutics to determine what specific passages are intended to convey, we must understand and respect the fundamental mechanics of authority that exclude doing what we want to do as opposed to carrying out what is authorized.
Al: Would such a practice, however, be "Beneficial" to the Body of Christ Jesus? Ahhhh, here we come down to the nitty-gritty of the matter! This is where individual and corporate personalities and preferences and perceptions come to bear on the subject. Frankly, there are some individuals and congregations who genuinely believe that since the NT writings don't specifically say the early disciples used instruments, that they are therefore sinful. If that is their conviction, then they should live by it (Romans 14:22-23). "Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). In such a congregation, therefore, it would NOT be "Beneficial" for that group to employ instruments of music in their worship. If someone were to later come into their group and try to introduce such a practice, that person would NOT be acting in a benevolent, godly manner toward these brethren who honestly held to a differing conviction, and who were merely seeking to worship their God according to their own perception of His will. Such a person would be putting a stumbling block before them -- an unloving act.
RW: Good advice, Al. But I do not recall your condemnation, or even your voiced disapproval, when elders have introduced instruments into the church over which they presided, resulting in the immediate departure of a large number of disciples. “A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” is listed among the things God hates (Prov. 6:19).
Al: There are other groups of disciples, however, in other congregations, where just the opposite would be the case. They are edified and built up in their faith by such instrumental accompaniment.
RW: An instrument built by the hands of men in no way edifies a congregation. A requirement for “edification” is that it teach.
Al: They do not regard such to be "unauthorized" or sinful in God's sight, and indeed are convicted, based on their own honest study of the Word, that God is glorified by such expressions of heartfelt praise.
RW: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25).
Al: They too sing praises unto God from the depths of their hearts, as Paul instructed, and I firmly believe they are no less accepted and approved by their God in their expressions of worship than are those disciples in the previous group. For someone to condemn or judge them for their differing conviction, or to look down on them or refuse to have fellowship with them or to view them as anything less than beloved brethren in Christ, would be for that person to be in violation of Paul's teaching in Romans 14. Those who sing a cappella, as well as those who sing with accompaniment, BOTH sing from the heart to their God. Thus, "who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4). Paul continues, "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this -- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Romans 14:13-14).
RW: Whether instruments in corporate worship can benefit a church or not may seem like a subjective issue. However, it is not simply a matter of opinion and is therefore not the subject of Romans 14. If it is not authorized, and it isn’t, then it is not BENEFICIAL and should not be practiced under any circumstances. The fact that many like and practice IM or that they “FEEL” that it pleases God has no bearing on whether it would be beneficial. That said, I can see how some might consider IM to be advantageous because it would draw people who enjoy it, or perhaps because it gives the appearance of bringing about unity.
In the paragraph below, Al totally disregards the fact that God has specified the kind of music He wants in corporate worship and appeals to human reasoning to justify an innovation that has divided many churches.
Al wrote: Therefore, guidance for our actions and attitudes, in this matter, comes from our answer to the question: Does this BENEFIT these particular disciples in this particular place at this particular time? If the practice is not "Anti-Biblical," and if it DOES benefit the brethren, then it is deemed acceptable. If God is glorified, if brethren are built up, if the cause of Christ is furthered, if the lost are attracted to the light, then the practice is approved. The mere fact of biblical "silence" on some practice is NOT prohibitive (contrary to the CENI hermeneutists). Their hermeneutic would lead to alienation in this area (and frequently has); this new, better approach leads to greater acceptance among God's genuine children. I think that constitutes a better way.
RW: Again, Al, God has NOT been silent regarding music, and you know it. He specified singing. He gave a command to SING. It does not matter what you think of CENI or of brethren who employ it in establishing authority; God chose the kind of music He desired for the church and no man has a right to try to change it. God’s “genuine children” (those who have been baptized for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38; 47) respect his authority. They do not endeavor to construct a “better way” on the grounds that it might lead to “greater acceptance.”
Al’s Conclusion
In all we do, God must be ultimately glorified. In all we do, we must subjugate our own human desires to the greater good of those around us (both saved and lost). In all we do, we must assure that HIS purpose is served by our actions and attitudes, and that we do not knowingly array ourselves against Him or His Word. The Father expects His children to be mature, discerning, loving sons and daughters. He does not follow us around with a rule book and a switch! He guides us by His precepts and principles; He does not enslave us to rigid rules and regulations. We are, after all, free in Christ. But, with freedom comes responsibility. We are to exercise good judgment, and show consideration for others.
Is this hermeneutic I've advocated somewhat subjective in nature? Yes, it is. Most are. There is a major difference, however. This hermeneutic has no inherent drive to formulate universal binding LAW. Rather, it operates on God's guiding principles. My reasonings from Scripture, in areas of silence, will be for the purpose of guiding me in helping myself and others to grow in grace, not for the purpose of devising decrees to forever bind others to my personal preferences. My goal is freedom, not slavery; love, not law; responsible reform, not rigid regulation; acceptance, not alienation. It is an approach to Scripture that seeks to bring all believers together, not find ways to justify our increasing separation from members of God's extended family. It does not promote any "pattern" other than the pattern of God's love, mercy and grace as evidenced in the heart and life of Jesus. Our God is LOVE, not LAW, and this hermeneutic seeks His guidance within the parameters of the former, not the latter. Is it a perfect hermeneutic? No! None are. But, I feel it approaches the Bible with a far better spirit and focus than CENI. Thus, it is the interpretive approach I have adopted, and I commend it to you for your further reflection.
Robert’s Conclusion
Al wrote, “This hermeneutic has no inherent drive to formulate universal binding LAW. Rather, it operates on God's guiding principles.” Let me remind the reader that neither CENI nor Al’s “guiding principles” are hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of scripture. A good Bible student employs good hermeneutical rules that help one understand what the author of a book or passage intended to convey. Al errantly asserts that the “hermeneutic” he has adopted and commends is not contrary to biblical teaching but is beneficial. This is a very strange stand for someone who recognizes that a specific command excludes ("sing" excludes playing). Al condemns proponents of CENI for “binding personal preferences” and charges them with having an “inherent drive to formulate universal binding LAW.” Godly men who seek to establish whether an act is authorized by determining if applicable scripture is a COMMAND, an EXAMPLE of something the early church did that was approved by the apostles, or something that is NECESSARILY IMPLIED, are wrongly charged with “binding personal preferences” and endeavoring to “formulate universal law.” Liberals and change agents hate “CENI” and they hate those who use it because they either want to do things their own way or they seek to change God’s word to accommodate the masses, which would promote unity in the body. Al and others have been challenged to come up with something better. Well, Al has tried and I have reviewed his writing as he requested. The reader can now weigh both CENI and what Al calls “hermeneutics” to establish authority for practices in the church, and determine which would result in actions that please God. Al says his view “approaches the Bible with a far better spirit and focus than CENI.” But a “spirit” that rejects commands of God is not a “better spirit” and its approach to the Bible is off track. Whether someone is lost because he advocates for, or even practices, something that is contrary to God’s word is a matter for another discussion, one that Al and I will not likely have because we share the same belief.
For further study of Bible Authority I direct the reader to my free 51-page book that contains sermon and class material. http://www.totalhealth.bz/BibleAuthority.pdf
Robert Waters
|
