How did we get in this fix? What causes us to think that there is but one “right” way and that all others damn — even when it comes to how to take communion? Indeed, why especially communion?
Well, part of the answer comes from a strange bit of human philosophy that helped define the Church of Christ hermeneutic: positive law.
“Positive law” is a law that prohibits something not intrinsically wrong. A “moral law” is based on fundamental morality. In civil law — the law of governments — we would say that the prohibition of murder is a matter of moral law, because murder is wrong even if the government doesn’t choose to punish it. However, the law setting a minimum wage is positive law, because general principles of morality don’t declare wages below $7.25 an hour immoral — although there certainly is a point at which wages are immorally low — which may be higher or lower than the federal minimum wage.
As a rule, in the Churches of Christ, we would refer to such teachings as the 5 acts of worship and the scriptural form of church organization to be positive laws, because there’d be nothing inherently immoral in, say, singing accompanied by instruments or having a single elder. After all, God commanded instrumental worship in the Old Testament. (This excellent essay by John Mark Hicks also addresses positive law.)
Now, in the Churches of Christ, this distinction has an important history. After the time of Alexander Campbell, some ministers began to argue that God held his people to a higher standard of obedience to positive commands. Benjamin Franklin (not the Revolutionary War hero), for example, preached, in a sermon published in 1877,
But positive divine law is of a higher order than this. It has the force to make that right which is not right in itself, and is the highest test of respect for divine authority known to man. It is also the greatest trial of faith ever applied to man. It is intended to penetrate down into the heart, and try the heart, the piety, the devotion to God. The very acts that some men have irreverently styled, “mere outward acts,” “mere external performances,” are the Lord’s tests of the state of the heart, intended to penetrate deep down into the inmost depths of the soul, try the heart, the piety, the devotion to God. They try the faith. The man that will obey a commandment, when he can not see that the thing commanded can do any good, or, it may be, that he can see pretty clearly that it can not do any good in itself, does it solely through respect to divine authority; does it solely to please God; does it solely because God commands it. This has no reference to popularity, pleasing men, or to the will of man, but it is purely in reference to the will of God. This is of faith; it is piety, devotion to God. It rises above mere morality, philosophy, or the pleasure of man, into the pure region of faith, confidence in the wisdom of God, and in submission to the supreme authority–yields to it reverently when no other reason can be seen for it only that the divine will requires it. The man in his heart says, “It must be done, because the absolute authority requires it.”
There are three degrees in this before it can reach the highest test, the greatest trial of faith. 1. To obey when we can not see that the thing commanded can do any good in itself. 2. To obey when we can see pretty clearly that the thing commanded can not do any good in itself. 3. To obey when we can see that the thing commanded is clearly wrong in itself. It tries the state of heart, the faith, the devotion to Him who commanded, to obey a command when we can not see that the thing commanded can do any good in itself. The test is greater, and the trial more severe, when we can see clearly that the thing commanded can not do any good in itself. The test is greatest, and the trial of faith most severe, when we can see that the thing commanded is clearly wrong in itself, but only made right by the arbitrary force of the absolute authority. This will all appear presently.
Notice he argues that we must obey God’s positive commands even when “the thing commanded is clearly wrong” — as though God could command such a thing!
Ultimately, he argues that positive laws are the “highest test for respect for divine authority known to man”! Therefore, obedience to positive commands was elevated above moral obedience. God issues these laws to test us, and we are measured by how well we do.
It was only a few years later that the silences of the scriptures were tortured into a positive command, as though one could command by silence! Indeed, even today I read editor-bishops damning those who sing with an instrument for violating a “command” of God.
Of course, when silences become commands, well, there’s an awful lot of silence, and this has led to damnations and counter-damnations over who correctly reads the silences. You see, we’ve invented the perversity of “positive silences” and made silences that we infer more important and more binding that what God actually says (all the while accusing the progressives of disrespecting the scriptures!). And, indeed, this has led to a notable lack of interest in reading what the text says for what it says.
Even today, many schools of preaching continue to teach the superiority of positive commands to moral commands — and certainly Church of Christ theology shows this attitude. After all, it’s the positive commands that we believe serve as “marks of the church.”
Many of us have experienced the kind of Christianity this reasoning has produced — a Christianity that damns over every violation of positive “law” and grants grace for violations of moral law, a Christianity that defines its borders by adherence to every fashionable inference rather than faith and love and the Spirit, a Christianity that can make no sense of Romans and 1 John and Jesus but happily claims perfect knowledge of the two passages that mention singing.
Indeed, while many Christians caught up in this religion are good, loving people, they are part of churches so afraid of violating a law that they do next to nothing for God’s kingdom.
But Benjamin Franklin had it exactly backwards: moral law is higher than positive law. Indeed, I question whether God even imposes positive law any more.
(Hos 6:6 ESV) 6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
(Isa 1:11-17 ESV) 11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12 “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations– I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.
We understand the figure of speech. God is not refusing animal sacrifice but animal sacrifice that is sheer ritual designed to induce a deity to act in trade for an animal, rather than as an outpouring of obedient love. Ritual is meaningless by itself. And Hosea — in a passage quoted by Jesus at least twice — contradicts Benjamin Franklin.
Thus, when we consider the Lord’s Supper, to someone brought up in this positive-law hermeneutic, the “law” is whether we use leavened or unleavened bread. We thus test the soundness and faithfulness of sister congregations by whether their leaders adhere to our interpretation of the “rule.” And to us, there most certainly is a rule because we’ve been trained to look for a rule — indeed, we prove ourselves worthy to God by finding and obeying the rule despite its arbitrariness, even despite its wrongness!
In this kind of thinking, the purpose behind leavened or unleavened bread ceases to matter. In fact, the less it matters, the most positive the command and the greater the reward for obedience. The understanding — the meaning of casting out the yeast — becomes not a valuable life-shaping, ethics-altering lesson but polemics — arguments to be used to defeat the enemies of God who argue for the wrong position. We study to prove ourselves saved and all others damned, rather than to conform our lives to the life of Jesus.
Thus, the lesson we were supposed to learn becomes an excuse for division and condemnation. And Jesus is left in tears, astonished that we could so perversely misunderstand the simplest things.
Jay, I was appalled to learn that one should by “example” pass out the juice before the crackers.. [Luk 22:17 ESV] 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” [Luk 22:19 ESV] 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Do you realize the slippery slope we have been sliding down by passing out the crackers first…morally outraged !! 🙂
Jay,
the leavened v. unleavened bread and wine v. grape juice issues are all about positive law v. trusting the Lord who gifts us with diversity. Where one seeks a law or a rule, the other seeks to walk in grace the way our Father does.
Still, having looked beyond CofC borders, I cannot see this as a defining characteristic of CofC congregations. All modern western cultural churches utilize this positive law whenever they find any excuse – like getting rid of a pastor or preacher who calls them to stretch their faith at all or giving favor to only those believers who will profess adherence to a specific credal declaration.
Others, whether they call themselves CofC or something else, are expected to fall in line or be branded apostate by every denomination in its own way. This is even true among the professing independent, build-your-own congregations that have nearly no (they may have an ex-CofC-er in their assemblies) connection to SC-RM churches. This is an integral part of practically all denoms.
G
Thanks Jay. In my experience Positive lawism is far broader than CoC.
If only we all, CoC and non-CoC, would switch from that hermeneutic to Precept and Example.
Then the dreams of the highest aspirations of all CoCers could be realized.
Grizz,
Actually, we’re supposed to take the cup twice because of that example.
But we know the gospels don’t matter; all that matters is what Paul said. For he was writing positive law, while the gospels tend to drift into that morality stuff that doesn’t count.
Price,
Some decades ago, I was asked to lead communion at our church. At the time, we had the men line up in front military style. The men who passed out the elements actually met in advance to review a chart showing each man’s responsibility — much like a football play call. We had it down to a science.
But I was young and intimidated by the numbers and, well, I passed out the FOTV first. Of course, no one said anything to me, because it was unthinkable to speak during the LS. We just did it backwards — in a horrified silence.
I took great comfort in Luke’s account, written especially for guys like me.
So, if I understand this correctly, we have many more positive laws than moral laws but where is the condemnations against the breakers of the Positive Law? Where is 1Corinthians 6:9 part b? You know, “and neither shall the multi-cuppers, nor they that have Bible class or paid preachers, nor they that sing with instruments, nor they who use the treasury to support orphans homes and disaster relief organizations, nor they that use leavened bread for the Supper, nor they that don’t attend Sunday and Wednesday nights, nor they who raise hands in prayer, or clap for joy at baptisms or sing during the Communion , nor they that bring Christmas decorations into the Church Building, nor they that preach Christmas sermons, nor they that take the Lord’s Supper on any day, other than Sunday,………and on and on we could go…seems like a lot of “adding to the word” taking place.
I’d like to shift away from the Lords Supper, for a moment to make a point about how difficult, if not outright impossible, it is to follow “positive law” (I really dislike that phrase).
In John 13 and John 15, Jesus describes his own words as “a new command” (the only time in the NT Text where he does that). In both places, the new command is “love one another as I have loved you.”
In order to follow that command, as individuals, each of us must make a judgement about how Jesus’ love would express itself in a specific situation. Hopefully, we do that thoughtfully and prayerfully, seeking to follow the Spirit’s leading.
But, and I think most of us will acknowledge this point, we don’t always succeed in doing the right thing. Our intentions are right, but we “miss the mark.” I could get specific here, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Most of us know, if only in retrospect, when we blew it … even though trying to do the right thing.
Two people can observe the same situation, and with a good, well-intentioned heart before God, do different things. Perhaps one is what Jesus would do, the other not. Not only are we incapable of properly judging such an outcome (because we simply never know all there is to know), but God counsels us not to judge.
To God, according to the NT Text, only God can judge the heart, and it is the heart that matters to God.
Jay has laid down the “mindset” prevalent in the CoC that can only ask for Book, Chapter and Verse. To ask why the book was written would ruin a long held interpretation of the verse. Adding to the Word is essentially the problem illuminated in the explanation of “positive silences.” Positive silences is a dedication of mind to the upholding of law. Adding to understanding would require a dedication of heart to upholding the Word. The former allows room for the law keeper to control the level of conscience allowed to intervene. The latter allows the intervention of the One who has control with a clear conscience.
David Himes says and sums it up well: “…only God can judge the heart, and it is the heart that matters to God”.
Maybe when we pray, seeking God’s will, we should should also ask, “God, help me to be your child after your own heart”. There is something about seeking the heart of God that changes ours, that helps us understand like Meister Eckhart, that God is closer to us than we are to ourselves. This changes God from observer to very being and life, ours and others, which changes us to no longer being afraid to embrace the differences of another, for we are one.
David,
I think I agree but you may have a typo in your comment. You wrote,
“I’d like to shift away from the Lords Supper, for a moment to make a point about how difficult, if not outright impossible, it is to follow “positive law” (I really dislike that phrase).”
In fact, it’s really easy to follow positive law. The real law — love your neighbor; love God — is really, really hard. And I think that’s your intent.
As a result, those who seek to honor the real law, the law of Christ, cannot feel justified by their goodness. You can sing a cappella your entire life and not once worship with an instrument. But you cannot love at the same level of perfection. Hence, a truer understanding of sin leads to a truer understanding of grace.
Let us all here remember that Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus was a learned Jewish man. He knew and repeated a lot of what had been written in the Torah and by the prophets. He fulfilled prophecies and spoke of them quite often. This is why the lectionary has a reading from the prophets which corresponds to a portion of the gospel. When both are read back to back, as is the custom, it becomes obvious just how much Isaiah and Jeremiah knew of who and what the messiah would be and do, respectively. It then becomes obvious that Jesus uses that prophesy to prove his messiahship, if that is a word. I only learned this because I one time heard that there had been others who had claimed to be messiah and all met the same fate.
Also, when the time frame of the prophets’ writings is mentioned (which is very rare) and what was going on in the world at that time (even rarer), it becomes obvious that the prophets knew what was going on and wrote to instruct the people in light of then-current world events. Once all this is explained, the writings start to make sense.
By example, he demonstrated what Isaiah said G-d desired of the people (ch1, written above). The keeping of laws did not really produce better people. We must also remember that most 1st century “churches” might have had a fragment of some of the writings of the prophets and part of a Torah. Those which received letters from Paul would have had them but would likely not have had every letter written to every church.
I put this here because of your mentioning of Isaiah and the “5 acts of worship,” which seem to rarely include reading portions of scripture during the service. I guess that unwritten prohibition of using the lectionary qualifies as another “positive law.”
I asked on more than one occasion why more of the bible was not read during the service. The answers included, “it bores the people” and “G-d made no provision for bible readers during the service, you can read it at home.” I have a problem believing the former and the latter is ridiculous.
Mark,
You’ll be interested in —
Paul instructed Timothy to read the scriptures publicly. It didn’t make the list of Five Acts of Worship purely because that list affirms the customs of the early 19th Century American frontier churches, with slight changes — moving communion to weekly rather than quarterly mainly. They omitted the Love Feast and public reading, and added the invitation (an innovation that dates back only the Great Awakening of the 18th Century). I’m not sure when announcements and Sunday evening services were added. Baptisms were probably not part of our church services until the 20th Century — since before then you had to go to a creek.
None of that matters unless someone claims to have perfectly perfectly replicated the First Century assembly using the Five Acts — which is just not true and is an absurd basis to claim to be the One True Church. But neither is it required that we do so. I’m confident, for example, that God is quite happy with baptisms during the church service, even though it adds a Sixth Act.
http://stonedcampbelldisciple.com/2008/02/11/
anomalies-in-the-pattern-lingering-questions/
BY
Bobby Valentine
Anomalies in “The Pattern”
All Christians recognize the authority of the Bible. Some do not understand the nature of that authority the same way but it is recognized nonetheless. Various words like guide or model are sometimes used to help convey how biblical authority functions. Still others latch onto words like pattern, blueprint or constitution. Some postulate that the nature of this pattern is quite exact in its details. For example Roy Deaver wrote several years ago
“God has given mankind the pattern for building his life. God has given the pattern for Christian character (attitudes and conduct) and the pattern for the church (organization, name, doctrine, worship, plan of salvation, mission) …” (“We Must Recognize That the New Testament Does Set Out the Divine Pattern,” Firm Foundation [October 22, 1985], 2)
Deaver asserts that “the fact that the New Testament is designed to be our pattern is emphatically declared in numerous passages …” he goes on to cite 2 Jn 9; 1 Cor 4.6; Gal 1.6-8; and Rev 22.18,19. One wonders if the New Testament, the book, is under consideration in any of these passages? I submit they do not. The Second John text has no “book” under consideration. First Corinthians has the Hebrew Bible under consideration (interestingly enough). And Revelation has only itself under consideration.
I embrace the idea that a “pattern” is testified to in Scripture. We need to let the Scriptures set our agenda and not our debate traditions. If the Pattern Principle is alive and well as it is articulated by many one has some difficult facts to account for in the life of the Living Word of God himself … Jesus. I will share three such “anomalies” with my blog readers that need to be addressed. For each of these there is no “biblical” authority for in the sense that there is a book, chapter and verse authorizing these things.
Jesus and the Cup of Thanksgiving
All three Synoptic Gospels testify that Jesus took the “cup” and gave thanks for it (Mt 26.27; Mk 14.23; Lk 22.10-23). Indeed in Luke we have the presence of two cups that were of the four on Passover’s table in Jesus’ day. This cup(s) which was part of the Passover ritual during first century Judaism became part of the Lord’s Supper as Paul testifies in 1 Cor 10.15 and 11.24,27. The question that the rigid patternist must deal with, if they are to face the issues with integrity, is where did that cup come from and who gave the authority for it? One will search in vain in the Hebrew Bible for a command from God to have a cup (much less four of them) in the Passover meal. The cup became traditional for Jewish observance during the intertestamental period. There is no record before the second century B.C. for the cup as part of the meal. In fact the very first time the cup is mentioned is in that popular book known as Jubilees. In Jubiless 49 there is a lengthy discussion of the Passover and its proper observance. In verse 6 we read of eating and “drinking wine and praising and blessing and glorifying the LORD the God of their fathers …” This, as I said, is the first time in history wine/cups are a part of the meal. Yet Jesus embraced this tradition without even raising an eyebrow as far as the record shows. Did Jesus not know that adding a cup to the meal was a violation of the pattern principle?
from john mark hicks blog
http://johnmarkhicks.com/2010/11/18/old-is-good-new-is-better-creation-and-sacraments/
…The Eucharist is bread and wine, but it is more than bread and wine. It is not “regular” meal. We may experience God through any meal–whether it is the nightly family meal, the church pot-luck or thanksgiving dinner! Old creation is still good and is still a medium of God’s presence in the world. But the Eucharist is more.
The Eucharist is the experience of new creation. The bread and wine of the old creation become means by which we experience the reality of the new cration. It is still bread and wine–created materiality is not annihilated–but it is also a participation in the reality of the new creation through the presence of Christ. Whether we think of that presence in the bread, through the bread or at the table is inconsequential to my point here. The Eucharistic meal is a new creation meal that does not annihiliate materiality or creation. Rather, it transforms it, liberates it and brings it to its telos (goal).
Baptism is water but is more than water. It is not a “regular” dip in water. We may experience God in the shower or through a warm, long hot bath. Old creation is still good and is still a medium of God’s presence in the world. But Baptism is more.
Baptism is the experience of new creation. The water of the old creation becomes a means by which we experience the reality of the new creation. It is still water–created materiality is not annihilated–but it is also a participation in the reality of the new creation through our union with Christ. In or through Baptism we participate in the eschatological death and resurrection of Jesus. We rise from the watery grave to live as new creatures; participants in new creation. Baptism is a new creation bath in water that does not annihilate materiality or creation. Rather, it ushers us, by the Spirit, into the reality of the new creation where we are raised to sit with Christ in heavenly places at the right hand of God.
Assembly is the gathering of people but it more than a mere gathering. It is not simply a group of people “hanging out.” We may experience God through hanging out with friends, even going to ballgames and playing in God’s good creation. Old creation is still good and it is still a medium of God’s presence in the world. But Assembly is more.
Assembly is the experience of new creation. The gathering of God’s people within the old creation becomes a means by which we experience the reality of the new creation. We are still living here in this broken, old creation but through that gathering of material creatures we participate in the reality of the new creation through union with the eschatological assembly of God around the throne of God. Through Assembly we enter the holy of holies as a community and join the community that is already and eschatologically gathered there. We participate in the Sanctus of the angels and join the heavenly chorus, singing, “Holy, Holy, Holy.” Neither our materiality nor our creatureliness is annihilated. Rather, through creation we participate in new creation as the Spirit of God takes us into the throne room of God just as John was lifted there “in the Spirit” in the Apocalypse.
The Eucharist, Baptism and Assembly are meeting places. They are places, by the promise of God, where God meets us in this old, broken creation in order to experience–to taste, to get a glimpse of–the new creation. They are moments of both authentic participation in the new creation as well as anticipations (hope) of the fullness of new creation.
Through the sacraments, God authentically communes with us and promises that one day the brokenesses of creation will pass away and all creation will be liberated and renewed.
This is why I love the sacraments–they are gifts of God through which we experience new creation and anticipate the new heaven and new earth. They are injections of hope in a broken world, previews of coming attractions, and proleptic experiences of what is to come.
blessings all
rich
Thanks Jay,
I will try to find the blog on which I was told that latter comment and let him know the reference.
Pingback: Links To Go (January 24, 2014) | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts