Alexander (a/k/a aBasnar) who frequently comments here and whose opinions I respect (although we sometimes disagree) challenged some statements I made in the most recent post on 1 John in a couple of comments here and here. Before responding to the substance of the comments, I need to cover some preliminary points.
First, my comments were made as part of a series on 1 John, which is not finished. Some of the questions will be responded to in due course as part of the series.
Second, for readers who’ve not been here long enough to remember, I addressed this topic in consideration detail in the Moral Law vs. Positive Law series that was a part of the Fork in the Road series. It took up several posts, and I can’t cover all that ground here. And I covered much of the same material in a series on Hermeneutics quite some time ago. Readers who wish to dig very deeply into this material should spend some time in those series.
Third, I take “love your neighbor” to be foundational for a truly gospel-based hermeneutic. I base much of my hermeneutics on the following passages, as well as those quoted in the previous post.
(Mic 6:6-8 ESV) 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
(Gal 5:6 ESV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
(1Jo 3:23 ESV) And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
(Mat 7:12 ESV) 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
These passages, plus the ones cited in the previous post, say much the same thing. It must to be important and true. Therefore, I figure that any reading of the text that contradicts these passages is surely mistaken. For some reason, Micah, Jesus, Paul, and John all want us to understand that it’s about faith and love.
As to the Golden Rule, I take it as not only a maxim to live by but as a key to the interpretation of the scriptures — because Jesus says it is: “this is the Law and the Prophets.” What does he mean by that? That we should be nice, in offensive people? Or that if we were to correctly understand the ethics God is teaching us in the Law and the Prophets, we’d see that it all within the Golden Rule?
But, of course, whether we’re discussing the Golden Rule or John 13:34-35, those passages have to be understood within a truly Christian worldview (using the term correctly and not in the fundamentalist sense that is becoming popular in some circles). The gospel informs us as to the true meaning of “love” and eliminates false claims of love. 1 John insists that we understand “the truth” — the truth who is Jesus, that Jesus taught and that Jesus lived — and build from there. Thus, from within the Christian worldview, evangelism is an act of love and the Golden Rule compels me to teach my neighbor about Jesus.
Now, to Alexander’s questions. Alexander wrote,
Yes, ALL of this could be summed up under LOVE. But this is misleading. It would be misleading to do this without love as well, but just speaking of love in a way that belittles these commandments is dangerous. Aren’t there many who feel “right” with God just because they “feel” love for him and others – while at the same time doing the very opposite of what Christ spoke of in His sermon on the mount?
There’s no call for me to defend those who teach a soft, useless “love.” Rather, I teach the love taught by Jesus —
(John 13:34-35 ESV) 34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
As I said in the previous post, “as I have loved you” makes this an incredibly hard and challenging command. Why should I be called upon to defend some other kind of “love”? I’ve not remotely suggested that anyone may “feel ‘right’ with God just because they ‘feel’ love for him and others.” I said we’re called on to love even to the point of submitting to crucifixion. (And I covered this concept in detail in the Cruciform God series.) I said that Jesus is the standard (because Jesus said this).
Alexander wrote,
To obey commandments is scriptural, isn’t it? So what’s the issue?
Well, the issue is to understand what the commands really say and demand of us.
To obey and follow examples is scriptural, isn’t it? Yes, of course – so what’s your problem?
One cannot obey an example — unless that example is a person. We should follow the example of Jesus, because he models the love that he commands. Other examples are not commands and should not be treated as such.
That we need to make inferences in order to apply a principle is scriptural as well – I mean you won’t get any results if you don’t define how to do this or that command. We shall dress modestly – no one would deny that. But so many have big problems to explain or exemplify what modest dress in our time and culture is and is not. We cannot live completely without inferences, although I’d add that these inferences are always open for debate and change – but not the commands and examples.
I see no rationale for making examples binding. What makes that true? Where is that taught in scripture? How do we know which examples are binding and which are not? Why did Jesus insist we obey his commands if he meant “commands and examples”?
But, of course, we must make inferences. But we often infer from the wrong things, the wrong ways, for the wrong reasons. We import into the scriptures ideas and obligations that are foreign to the text and so “find” things that aren’t really there. To avoid this result, we need a tightly disciplined hermeneutic, taken not from the Early Church Fathers or John Calvin or Thomas Warren but from the scriptures themselves. And I suggest that the texts that push us toward faith and love do so for a God-given reason. They should be taken seriously.
In fact, if you study these texts closely, you’ll see that some of them actually are speaking about how to read the Bible —
(Mat 7:12 ESV) 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
(Rom 13:8-10 ESV) 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Gal 5:14 ESV) 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
These are stated in terms of how to read the text. Note especially Rom. 13:9: “any other commandment” is summed up by “love your neighbor.” Do we take this seriously or not?
So, I cannot not water this down. We need to take commands, examples and necessary inferences seriously, but also in this order. I would define an inference as an agreement on how to apply God’s word within a local congregation, according to the circumstances, wisdom and possibilities of the church, but “binding” only temporarily (until better insights come) and locally.
Now, I’m intrigued by your definition of “inferences.” That is very un-Church of Christ, and would do us a great deal of good. Yes, sometimes a congregation has to make an inferential choice about how to handle question X, and they have no business imposing their inferences on other churches or even future leadership generations within that church. Amen.
Anyway: If you go this route, you make a canon in the canon. You accept Jesus but reject those who He sent. But we are to obey the apostles in the same way as the Lord, because they are His messengers and spoke in His name and authority. Who receives them receives the Lord.
You forget that I’m citing apostolic authority for what I teach. Paul said it. John said it. Let’s take an obvious example —
(Rom 13:8-10 ESV) 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Is there any possible way to make that language say that “love is the fulfilling of the law but doesn’t fufill most of what Jesus and the apostles said”? Remember: this passages appears in the ethical climax of Romans. Paul had just spent most of chapter 12 explaining how we should love each other! After 11 chapters of challenging, deep theology, Paul spends chapters 12 – 15 teaching us how to love each other. He not only says that love fulfills the law, he gives extensive commentary on how to live lives of love. Verses 13:8-10 explain why he spends so much time on the subject (as does 12:1).
Read Romans from beginning to end, and in the longest, deepest, richest, most challenging exposition of Christian theology, he spends the entire ethical section on love for one another. And he explains why.
Take Jesus’ many teachings. The Sermon on the Mount is an explanation of how to love your neighbor. You see, if you understand Jesus’ ethical teachings correctly, they become corollaries to “love your neighbor” as understood within a Christian, gospel-informed worldview. Let me offer some examples — which I’ll take from your comments —
We are to love our enemies and be nonresistant (let’s learn a lesson from the Mennonites here) We must not swear any oaths (and not pledge any allegiance to a piece of cloth) We must not divorce and remarry (with just one – single! – exception) We must forgive one another in order to be forgiven We must rebuke our sinnig fellow-Christians in love, but with discipline We must be separate from the world We must not serve Mammon We must take up our cross and deny ourselves We must go out and make disciples We must serve the needy
Now, you say some fairly controversial things here, and I don’t want to get distracted into other areas. (This topic is quite challenging enough.) It is my thesis that none of these command can be correctly understood except as corollaries to “love your neighbor.” Some are quite obvious: “take up our cross” is an obvious consequence of “(John 13:34 ESV) just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” “We must serve the needy” is an obvious application of “love your neighbor.”
Some are more challenging. To sort out what Jesus intended in his teachings on divorce, we have to start with “love your neighbor.” (Details are will be found here.) The obligation to forgive as we’ve been forgiven is a plain consequence of “just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”
Indeed, the command to be separate from the world can only be understood aright in light of “love your neighbor” — else it could lead to monasticism rather than engagement with a lost and dying world.
Thank you for your extensive reply, Jay.
Let me show you briefly, why I nelieve examples are binding:
a) The book of Acts
give a vivid description of the beginning of the church
Almost all agree, for instance, that Acts 2:42 shows the key elements of church life: Act 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
This is no command, but a description. Of course we could point to the institution of the Lord's Supper by Christ as a command. But the book of Acts is not a book of rules but of examples. The only clear rules I recall in this book are the 4 requirements in Acts 15 which aere so debated (although it was a general letter to all churches amongthe gentiles – quite incionsistent to say, this wouldn't apply to us …).
But these examples of what the church did all reflect apostolic teaching. Ths is quite important to notice. We see Tabita sowing clothes for the widows in Acts 9 which is an examüple forthe teaching of serviong according to one's gifts. Not that all have to sow clothes, but that this is a good way to serve and worthy to be imitated.
The command of breaking the Bread is reflected in Acts 2:42 as "being held fast to", a few verses later as a "daily" observance (Acts 2:42) and a few chapters later as a weekly observance (Acts 20:7). So we see two differernt applications of the same command and both reflect apostolic teraching among the first churches. This gives a a direction how to understand this "as often" in Christ's words. It gives freedom to do it daily if we please, and it also focusses on the First Day.
This is to show you that by "binding examples" I don't think of picking and choosing or of inflexible rules. But there is more to it:
b) Oral Apostolic teaching
Paul said something remarkable in 2Th 2:15: 2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
For "Sola/Solo Scriptura-people" this is a disturbing statement. The question is where do we find this oral teaching. If we don't want to go beyond Scripture – which uis indeed commendable – the life and examples of the NT-church are the onöy way to find the results and applications of this oral teaching.
Aspects that blong here: Eating a meal together as part of worship (the Love Feast); everyone can share a Psalm, a word of prophecy, something that edifies the congregation; how we selects and ordain elders (more than one way); the practice of fasting; laying on of hands; community of goods (not the way the Hutterites practice it, but as a very important part of church life) …
We delude ourselves when we claim to be "fully restored NT-churches" but neglect (or belittle) these or other examples that are a clear reflection of Apostolic Teaching which we are to hold fast to, even when it was not written down as an explicit command.
c) To be balanced
I don't think of a rule approach, Jay. But of the MUST of faithful obedience (that's a word Romans starts and ends with). It is about an attitude rather than following a list of commands. But it is an attitude that readily does what the Lord says without seeking ways to avoid a command, such as a cunning exegesis that makes the word of God obsolete – as it is applied in the prohibtion for eating blood and strangled meat (Acts 15) or the headcovering (1Co 11).
There are two standards of judgement, however: Teachers will be judged according their higher responsibility. CHrist said, that those who nullify one of the smallest commands will be the smallest ones in the Kingdom. I'd say both examples I gave range under "minors", and both of them are nulified by the majority of teachers in the West today (I certainly dion't want to stand in their shoes on judgement day).
The second one is that every church member has to obey his or her teachers. There is no room for private or individualistic interpretation or application in a church of Christ, but the teachers have to show the way and to lay out God's will.
Salvation is not tied to deliver a complete list of obedience to every single command, but to a faith that works and obeys in love. We all fall short, says even James. BUT we need and have to cultivate an attitude of obedience that does not try to explain away which is painful to our pride or flesh, or too "insignificant" (or too "foolish") for our "brainwashed human wisdom."
That's why the distinction between singular and plural use ofthe word command/commands actually misses the point. There is no either/or here, but a Both/And. We have to follow every command if we want to be called faithful disciples, and yet love covers a multitude of sins since this is the fulfillment of the Law. These two statements don't exclude each other, but complement each other. We don't love God if we belittle aor explain away his explicit commands.
Alexander
This matter is central to most of the disagreements on Jay's blog.
Alexander's position leads to a legalistic perspective. Jay's to a graceful perspective.
Jesus's only explicit command was to love as he loved, Alexander. Everything else in the Text is an attempt to elaborate on what that means.
Jay,
Have you ever read Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics? i believe he's Anglican. Anyway, at least his work if not others shows that there is an ambiguity in Romans 13.
(1) Various laws being "summed up" by "love your neighbor" means that the individual laws are expositional of "love your neighbor," that is, loving your neighbor means (at least) behaving in the ways specified by the various laws. Thus, to break any of the specific laws amounts to a failure to love one's neighbor.
(2) Various laws being "summed up" by "love your neighbor" means that "love your neighbor" can at times require behavior contrary to the specific laws, but the specific laws are mere generalities that often cache out what loving your neighbor means but not always. Thus whether a person is or isn't keeping the more specific laws is simply unimportant in comparison with whether or not they are conforming to the more primary command to "love your neighbor." (This is closer to Fletcher's position.)
Here you seem to be saying something like (1). i think people get itchy because they take you to be saying something like (2).
–guy
David,
What counts as an explicit command? Does the word "command" have to be used? Or does the imperative mood suffice?
–guy
When we try to make the Bible a book of rules for us to discover and practice, we will almost invariably end up in bitter dispute and division. At least that has been the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement for at least the last 120 years of it (since the Sand Creek "Address and Declaration" adopted c. 1889).
I blogged about the same subject Jay has introduced here: that all commands are summed up in love about six months ago. You can read it at http://committedtotruth.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/….
David,
Since people use these terms in several ways, will you please define "legalistic" perspective and "graceful" perspective to avoid confusion? Thank you
Alexander
I thought that was a good and balanced response. There are a number of vexing questions for me concerning the apostolic teaching about "church order". Are they meant to be for all time and all circumstances? Should apostolic teaching be seen as equal to the law of God? Should we condemn those who we think are not abiding by apostolic teaching? For examples of my vexation, Paul, himself qualifies his counsel to the Corinthians not to marry, as temporary, but I would imagine he expected them to strongly consider his counsel. But then he condemns those teachers who would command celibacy as law of God. Obviously we should not consider Paul's recomendation of celibacy as equal to God's recommendation.. And then we have Paul's adament insistence, rebuking those who would ignore him, that women wear head coverings in church meetings. Most think that teaching is also temporary for the times, but who is to say? We could go on and on guessing about how much importance we should place on all the teachings of the apostles about church meetings and such, in their writings and in the examples of the early church. I don't have the answers.
I think Jay has given good evidence that the "law" to love and do things which express love trumps all other teachings. We are absolutely sure it is not temporary for the times. I would say we should make our best attempt to conform to the apostolic teachings concerning the church, but realize that love trumps all other commands.
Just a thought (maybe new for you): There is a different kind of legalism that asks for the bare minimum trhat is required for us … must often it comes under the header "grace".
Alexander
Well, are you intersted in the answers? actually they are not too difficult to discern, just takes some time, thinking, reading …and practicing in order to grasp them.
Just a few hints – not all topics:
There are a number of vexing questions for me concerning the apostolic teaching about "church order". Are they meant to be for all time and all circumstances?
You might want to check on how the Apostles – esp. Paul who wrote most of the letters – viewed it. How often did he point to a general practice in all churches? I think digging through these passages will reveal issues that surpass time and circumstances.
Or you might consider how rapidly the letters were copied and spresd (the gospels as ell, of course). Even Peter had a collection of Paul's letters and not only understood them, but also confirmed them as "scritpure". When letters to specific churches were copied and sent to the churches throughout the Roman empire – and that's why we hjave the very same letters as well! – it should be quotze evident that the content of these in general was mant to surpass time and circumstances.
After all: What do we mean by "Sola Scvriptura", if we don't believe that what has been handed down to us is the rzule by which we shall be saved and live and organize our congregations. Why are we "Restorationists" if not because we try to restore what was in the beginning? So our heritage – which I think is very scriptural in its approach – is built on the conviction, that all apostolic writings surpass time and circumstances.
First of all: Let God do the condemning and (second) let us strive for obedience. What did Christ say? Did He send out the Apostles with authority to teach in His name? And if they did so, is their word (spoken in His name) based on the authority of Christ and in harmony with His will? Actually CHrist said: "Who hears you hears me." And the church – accordingly is built not only on Christ (He is the Cornerstone), but also on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.
So shall we abide in teh Apostles teaching? What conclusion would you draw from Acts 2:42?
I think you can answer that yourself (in fact you did).
If you like to decide this by majority vote, you must keep two things in mind:
a) A unanimous practice among ALL denominations up the 1900s
b) probably even a majority of Christian women still covering their heads (if you take in to account Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well, Sisters in Africa, India, South America …
In fact, the text is so crystal clear that there was no serious debaote about its application up to one or two generations ago. The only questions that were dealt with were:
a) Does it apply to unmarried women as well (answered e.g. by Tertullian)
b) What kind of Cloth is appropriate (aswered e.g. by Hippolytus)
c) shall it be worn at all times or only during worship – here are different opinions throughout history
Paul himself, what did he say? Was is just local or temporary? Think about the angels (they are inviolved in his argument): are they local or temporary?
In conclusion:
There are answers to all of your question, if you dare to dig into the matters. If you dare. Because it takes courage to look into the proud face of a disobedient bride and then to decide: And still I'll love the church and do all that is in my power to lead her back to her first love, so that she may do the first works again (= restoration).
But if your "i don't have the answer" is just a polite way to say: "In fact, I made up my mind and am not intersted in the truth of the matter", my words are a waste of time … I hope it's not that way.
Alexander
Alexander
What is your conclusion on the matter of speaking in tongues in the church assemblly? Perhaps you have dug into this one. We have examples of this in the NT, so was it an apostolic command? If it was not an apostlic command, then maybe examples are not a dependable way to determine what is and what is not an apostolic command. If it was an apostolic command, then it seems strange that Paul would seemingly, if not discourage it, limit its use in the assemblly. Nevertheless;if it was an apostolic command, then was it temporary? If it was temporary, then maybe some other apostloic commands were temporary. If it was not temporary, then maybe, as some say, a church cannot claim to be truely restored until tongues reappear in the assemblly.
As I said, I don't have all the answers, and in the case of speaking in tongues, I don't have any of the answers. Perhaps you are correct, that we should treat all NT examples as permanent apostolic instructions and swallow hard and restore them to the church today. I am not a very avid restorationist, and neither am I totally convinced that the manifestations of the Spirit are with us today. But it seems to me that if one does think it important to restore the outward marks of the church by NT examples and apostolic instructions, then the manifestations of the Spirit would be one the first things to look into.
Not all have the gift.
God gives it according to His will (maybe He does it today also, maybe not)
Anyway:
Don't hinder it.
Not more than two or three.
Let it be translated.
there is no "need" for restoration, if God does choose to (or not to) give this gift. But in case this gift is with us, we have to use it in a scriptural way. And this is really simple to understand.
But seriously: Did you bring in this new topic in order to avoid thibnking about my answers to your first question? I have the impression that you just try to find a way to make nonsense of commands and patterns we are to follow. In other words: This kind of reasoning may have carnal roots.
Alexander
My reasoning may be carnal because I asked you to answer some difficult questions that you said you had the answers to?
No, but because you put aside my answers (or suggestions how to find these answers) in order to present a completely new question of which you surely know that the answer to this could lead me into crossfire frum convervative CoCers who just dogmatically tsay spiritual gifts don't exist anymore. Period. Well, so far none of these reacted to my answer.
Please try to undetrstand: This looks to me as if you were not really interested in truth but like to preserve ambiguities that allow you to pick and choose for yourself. I may be terrribly wrong with this impression of yours, but that's how your posts sound to me. That's why I did not say: Your reasoning IS carnal, but it MAY HAVE carnal roots – by which I mean: examine yourself. I don't want to be judgemental here. But I am interested in a serious and open dialogue rather than in playing "hide and seek".
Alexander
Alexander
I was not trying to put you in a crossfire. I married into a family of Pentecostals years ago and do have legitimate questions about the spiritual gifts. I was sceptical from the start, and saw things that reinforced my scepticism, but saw one thing a few years ago that forced me to question my scepticism.
Maybe you have found Biblical answers to all the questions concerning church order. Your comments on women's head coverings are quite good and spurred me to do some research on the subject. But I have learned not to set my opinions in concrete. I have been wrong too many times. And I usually take with a large grain of salt anything, anyone who is overly certain of his knowlege, says.
Dear Norton, I am sorry for misjudging you – but so often I became frustrated in such discussions; and the written format does not allow for shades in the tone of our voices.
To say that there are answers does not mean that I have got them all, either. But these questions I ahve studied over a period of almost 20 years by now – in the course of which I also had to refine and to put away "insights" as "short-sights".
Concerning the spiritual gifts I am very cautious not to put limits to God, the "perfect that shall come" most likely was not the New Testament, so we cannot say for sure they have ceased. They may have fulfilled their purpose, they may have diminished, they may not be granted in such abundance because of our disunity (remember: they were sent to confirm the Gospel: The question would be Whose church's Gospel should the gifts confirm?) …
But what is quite easy to see is how to practice these gifts in church life. And that's probably a main point – something to point out to pentecostals, if need be.
But, please, we all have to retain a bit of scepticism, don't ever put that away in order to follow blind guides blindly. Again, I imagined a completely different tone in the "voice" of your questions …
Alexander