Scripture, Culture, 
and the Essentials

Copyright by Gary D. Collier April 1994

Originally published in Dialogue 1:2 (1994) 22-28

 
 

For a more recent (August 21, 2002) adaptation of the last half of this article, see Life Together. 

Outline of "Scripture, Culture, and the Essentials":

Introduction

The present essay addresses the very difficult and important question of how we understand and apply the biblical text, especially in areas that have become important to us. I will suggest that (1) we are often methodologically inconsistent in deciding which commands we will keep and which ones we will modify or ignore, and then we cloud the issue by haggling over the so-called "New Hermeneutic;" (2) we have greatly complicated the matter by "canonizing" some of our interpretations of Scripture; (3) there is hope through dialogue if we keep certain principles in mind; and (4) we will find solutions if we will follow Jesus in distinguishing the crucial from the important, rather than continuing our efforts to make a checklist of "essentials."

The Hermeneutics Debate

    I begin with four unrelated, but clearly stated, direct commands from the NT:

    "You also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you a pattern-example,1 that you also should do as I have done to you." (John 13:15)

    For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. (1 Cor. 11:6)

    Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (James 5:14)

    Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. (1 Cor. 14:5)

I begin with these quotations from the NT to make one simple point: there are numerous commands in the NT that we have consciously decided not to follow literally or at all. Of course, we have our reasons, and we are quite happy with them. For the first three (foot washing, veils, oil), we nearly always appeal to "culture" and insist that we should (and do) keep the underlying principles though not the physical, formal action of the command.2 For the last (tongues and prophecy), we appeal to contextual reasons, arguing (usually) that such things are no longer operative among Christians. These are long-established practices in Churches of Christ and should not be considered "new" by anyone.

The problem is, we are accustomed to using such approaches on the above texts but not on some others. And when anyone attempts to explore whether the same principles should apply to other texts -- especially those texts whose interpretations have received a certain degree of canonicity among us (e.g., music, women, divorce) -- that person is likely as not to start a war, or perhaps simply be shot to death.

The easiest way to murder someone nowadays is to accuse him or her of being an advocate of the so-called "New Hermeneutic." Once done, he or she can simply be ignored. No one is quite sure what this "New Hermeneutic" is supposed to be, but plenty of people are blamed as having it.3 It is true, there is a great deal of turmoil over interpreting the Bible. Questions have been asked. Proposals have been made. Changes of one kind or another have been advocated (e.g., in worship, or elsewhere) based on interpretive stances. And sometimes there are loud and irresponsible arguments -- from people on every conceivable "side."

However, turmoil and confusion do not a "hermeneutic" make. By this I mean that among the people asking questions and raising issues about our traditional hermeneutic, there is a great deal of diversity. To lump them all together, as if they are operating from the same general frame of reference is like saying, "Whatever is not blue, is red" (whatever is not the traditional hermeneutic is "the New Hermeneutic"). This is neither accurate nor helpful. I suggest that in reality, there is no such thing as a "New Hermeneutic," and that we will do better to give careful attention to the issues being raised than to assassinate each other.

Canonizing Our Views

As I was growing up, my Bible teachers taught me to be willing -- always -- to bring every article of faith and practice before the governing board of the Bible to test whether what I believe is true and correct. I was taught that this was a noble thing and that it has biblical precedence in the Beroeans:

    The Beroeans were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

I was taught, and still accept, that this should be my model for Bible study. I have tried to be faithful to this principle. But I suppose I am still surprised and amazed when brothers and sisters appear to be more interested in preserving the status quo than in searching the Scriptures.4 As I have tried to take a few steps back to view our controversy as "objectively" as I am able, it seems clear that we (as a group) are more willing to consider some issues than others. Is there really any doubt about this? The sad fact seems to be that some of our understandings have reached canonical status and are now, in some circles, beyond question or re-evaluation. One will find little resistance (or interest!), for example, in considering the formal issues related to foot washing or veils. Few people feel too threatened that those practices will start up again in any serious way. But simply raise the question of the proper interpretation of Eph. 5:19 and the tension meter goes up a hundred and twenty points. In some cases, a statement is made, like: "If you are saying that Eph. 5:19 doesn't condemn instrumental music as a sin then you are obviously trying to subvert the truth." Discussion is over.

One problem with this attitude is that it pontificates what the truth must be. The view has become canonical. It is beyond question or discussion. And a further problem is that such an attitude no longer knows the difference between (1) what Scripture says and (2) what we think it means. Such a view advocates, for example, that the biblical phrase "singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord," is synonymous with the interpretive phrase "instrumental music is a sin." Well, maybe they are synonymous. But then again, maybe they aren't.

When viewpoints and understandings become canonical, we become very touchy about them. Whenever we are unwilling as a people to rethink a topic like this, not even willing to entertain a motion that perhaps we have misinterpreted or misapplied aspects of the text, perhaps that skittishness in itself should be a warning to us.

Of course, I am aware that by now some readers may be seeing red. I am possibly being interpreted as really trying to introduce a piano into worship, or some other such thing. But that is simply not the case. I am concerned about hermeneutical procedure -- how we handle texts and how we arrive at our doctrinal conclusions. I am suggesting this: IF we are willing to acknowledge that some aspects of Scripture (veils or foot washing) are best understood culturally, or that context helps us apply some texts differently from what they might appear to say on the surface (tongues), THEN-- if we are honest people -- we should be willing at least to consider whether we have dealt fairly, carefully, and openly especially with texts that have become very important in our self-definition. But when we canonize our interpretations and will not even consider the possibility of alternative understandings, we have reached a very dangerous point.

In the previous issue of DIALOGUE, my friend Dean Bryce made a very important, carefully worded comment on this whole matter. It bears repeating:

    Error can ride the winds of a "new way" of interpreting the Bible. Some new-interpreters speak as if previous generations failed to find any worthwhile truth. Already men and women question whether our spiritual forebears actually understood God's will on baptism, women's roles, instrumental music, denominational division, and grace. Is there room for study? Yes! But beware of false teachers" (Mt 7:15).5

I agree with this sentiment. And I add this mirror for reflection:

    Error can also ride the winds of "old ways" of interpreting the Bible. If we are not careful we may begin to act as if previous generations found all the truth and were not mistaken in anything. Already men and women venerate our spiritual forbears and hallow their views on baptism, women's roles, instrumental music, denominational division, and grace. Is it possible they were right on all these things? Yes! But always be willing to reconsider (Acts 17:11).6

It is right for us to be cautious as we re-study texts and issues, and as we listen to "new" ideas and proposals. But in our caution, let us not be duped by the world that we are each others' enemies. We are not. Where there are differences of opinion, let us seek understanding together. And where we have difficulty reaching accord on every detail, let us learn patience and latitude. But in the process, let us not canonize our interpretations of Scripture; instead, let us safeguard the difference between text and understanding.

Principles for Dialogue

Historically, people who disagree on items of importance often are unable (or unwilling) to find common ground for discussing the problematic areas. It does not have to be so. Especially in the case of people who claim to be Christians, all sides should be willing to make extra efforts to find ways of understanding and peace. To this end, I want to make seven suggestions which might aid in continued and profitable study of important matters:

1. Our traditional understandings on matters important to us do not need to be "trounced" in order to reconsider them. It is completely inappropriate to disparage, belittle, or ridicule traditional beliefs. To do so shows both desperation and disrespect. Neither is necessary. Traditional understandings were often achieved through faithful labor and sacrifice. The faith of our parents is truly worthy of our respect and careful handling.

2. Our traditional understandings should never prevent us from reconsidering matters important to us. Traditional understandings are guides, not sentinels. Nor do we disparage the faith of our parents by coming to grips with our own faith. If we truly wish to show honor to the faith of our ancestors, we will invest the same energies they did in the study of the Scriptures. We may disagree with them on some important matters, as they disagreed with their parents. But we are not thereby invalidating their faith or diligent efforts. And we should expect (and hope for!) same from our own children.

3. We must always be willing to reconsider former conclusions and to change our minds if our study of Scripture leads us to do so. The moment we are not willing to reconsider our understanding of any Scripture text, or any doctrinal position, we have become less than the noble Beroeans, to whom we have aspired. Whether the matter is instrumental music, the role of women, the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the character and existence of God -- if we are not willing to re-study the issue we are no better than the Pharisees for whom Jesus had little respect.

4. We must never feel compelled to change our minds just because it is fashionable to do so, or just because someone has a "new" or different idea on the matter. I have not been arguing that we must always change our minds -- that would be nonsense! It is no virtue to be wind-tossed Christians. We must be willing to change our opinions if our prayerful study leads us to do so, and we should be willing to re-study any issue. But in all cases we should be people of integrity who hold our convictions: cautiously, earnestly, prayerfully, and humbly. There is no question: a great deal of destructive modern and post-modern philosophies beat against us to tear both our individual and corporate faith apart. And we must be aware and alert.7 5. We should all -- as brothers and sisters -- be willing to study important issues together and not participate in scoffing and name calling. Let us drop our pejorative designations for each other, whatever they might be: And let us drop any reference to the so-called "New Hermeneutic." There is no such thing except in the minds of some who wish to bash others. Yes, there are some very important hermeneutical differences of opinion floating around, many of which are contradictory. So let us be bold enough to deal with the issues involved in a discussion -- one at a time -- and not participate in cowardly attacks on each other's personal character or supposed motives. These are shameful and beneath the dignity of Christian behavior. and instead, make concerted efforts to give each other the benefit of the doubt, to go out of our way to understand each other, and to assume that we are all attempting to follow God in our various searches. And this should apply to everyone on all sides of our discussions.

6. We must expect and allow variations of viewpoint on many matters. Yes, I am quite aware that Paul says: "all of you agree . . . be united in the same mind and the same judgment." But I agree with Dean Bryce that this does not refer to "the mental goose-step of believing the same things."8 Rather, Paul is making a concerted appeal to a group of Christians who were not only hopelessly divided over every possible thing, but who also were actually fighting each other (sounds all too familiar)! These people did not seem to have a clue what the "message of the cross" was all about.

Although we sometimes have the notion that earliest Christianity was completely unified in every thought, action, and detail, nothing could be further from the truth. Even a cursory reading of the NT letters shows the variety of thought, opinion, or practice that existed. Not all of it was good, of course, but much of it was of no consequence.9 Paul says it this way:

    One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Rom 14:5-6)

Of course, at the bottom of this is the question of "essentials." What must a Christian believe to be a Christian? Commands? Examples? Inferences? Which ones? And are you sure that the inference you have drawn is the correct one to draw? Is it as important as a stated command? If it is implied, isn't it part of the Bible? Is anyone willing to say that any particular part of the Bible -- even an implied one -- is not important?

At this point we are hopelessly trapped. We have painted ourselves into a corner that others have previously occupied. And now, we cannot move. What is essential? Everything!

With these statements I do not intend ridicule.10 Rather, I express my own frustration with this way of thinking about the subject. I am making a serious attempt to say, "I think this way does not work."

7. The starting place in any attempt to relate Scripture to people and their situations is with the person of Jesus himself. Of course, we will all agree with this--in theory. But I am convinced that, as a people, we do not accept it. We sometimes give lip-service to Jesus as the Master Teacher, and then we follow the Pharisees in straining out every gnat we can find. This is counter-productive and finally destructive. The starting place is with the person of Jesus. If we want to know how to apply Scripture to people and situations, we must turn and follow in his steps.

Essential or Crucial

But we are caught up in the question of "essentials." Why? Perhaps Acts 2:38 sent us there: "What shall we do?" Or Acts 16:30 "What must I do to be saved?" These are good questions, of course, but we should remember in each case how short the answers were.11 In fact, it is interesting to note that the Bible contains only one reference to "the essentials" in the sense we are interested:12 Acts 15:28-30, reportedly, the first Christian letter:

    For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things [e)pa/nagkej]: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

But the context of this passage makes it clear that these "essentials" were not considered essential elements for salvation. They were rather a (local? temporary?) solution offered by the Jerusalem church to help fledgling Gentile Christians avoid the wrath of the Jewish communities with which the Christians were still closely associated.13 In other words, the instructions were given because of current cultural conditions, and this is apparently so even though the letter does not say, "these are essential only as long as there is a cultural situation demanding it."14 No time limit is given with the instruction, nor any other qualification, and if we applied the same rules to this as we have to other parts of the NT we would have added this text to our list of "essential" doctrines. In fact, this would be the only one in the list with the word "essential" in it!

Perhaps our focus on "essentials" is a bit misguided. Perhaps we have been too concerned about lists of things to believe or do (about what makes the list, and what doesn't), and not enough about matters of life and character. So, perhaps we should alter our concern. Instead of asking, What is essential, and what is non-essential? perhaps we should simply ask: What does God want from us? This, in fact, is the question asked by the OT prophets and Jesus himself. Instead of pointing to essential and non essential items (which makes it sound like God has a check list and that items not on the list are unimportant), this question helps us to distinguish between the crucial and the important. The crucial, said Jesus, were things like love, "the first and greatest of all the commandments" (Matt. 22:38); and justice, mercy, and faith, "the weightier matters of the law" (Matt. 23:23). The other things (details of the law) were merely important. Without the crucial, the important becomes worthless and can even be dispensed with altogether, as Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 51:16:17 and other texts make clear. These are not just OT texts: they are answers to the question: What does God want from us? and are the basis of Jesus' attitude against the Pharisees (Matt. 9:13; 12:7).

So, if we are wanting to know the external community markers which distinguish us from others, we should not be surprised that Jesus both spoke to that concern, and tied it firmly to what is crucial. Three matters stand above all others: (1) A belief in the resurrected Messiah who brings and establishes faithfulness, justice, mercy, and love (Mt 16:21-23 and related texts); (2) immersion as identification with the person and principles of that Messiah (Mt 3:13-17; 28:18-20 and related texts); and (3) the community meal of the Messiah as the integration of his principles and practices (Mt 26:17-30 and related texts).

Important Matters

If this approach (follow Jesus in distinguishing the crucial from the important) is the one of choice, how does it apply to some of our specific questions? The best I can do now (for lack of space) is offer a general statement of my understanding of the case. Certainly, I do not expect everyone to agree and I am open to dialogue.

Stated succinctly: I do not think that instrumental music, the role of women in the church, abortion, divorce and remarriage, the form and order of worship, and other such things can be classified as part of the crucial, the "weightier matters of the law" (at least not the "law of Christ" -- it may be true that it has become part of the law of some churches). Such things are, in other words, secondary or tertiary matters and are subject to variation of belief and practice. This does not mean they are of no value, or that they are not important matters. It means rather that good, honest, hard working students of the Bible will possibly (!) come to different conclusions about the particulars of such matters (just like on days and foods).15 In such cases, we must learn to be careful and patient with each other, just as we have on other topics (such as, May a Christian go to war? or Should a Christian be pre-, post-, or a-millennial?)

Stated another way, I believe that leaders in individual congregations have the right to make up their own minds on these types of questions and to say,

    This is what we will do here in this place. May God bless our faith and efforts, and may he help our ignorance.

I would, for example, champion the decision of a congregation to have men only participate in what we often call "the public assembly of the church," as long as that congregation based its practice on its understanding of specific biblical teaching. I would also champion the right of a congregation to have women participate publicly in "the assembly," if it did so based on its understanding of specific biblical teaching. I would not, however, champion the right of any group who made major changes on such matters just because they are tired of the "old" ways, or don't like the "new" ways. And because I know I will be criticized heavily for my statements here, I simply remind us all that I am not proposing a new "procedure." We already follow this practice on numerous other issues. It is just that we (corporately) don't care about those issues anymore for defining who "we" are (such as a Christian's role in civil government, involvement in war, millennial views, men and women's hair length [in most churches], women's attire in "church," and which translation is read in "the assembly," to name only a few).

Conclusions

What distinguishes us as disciples of Jesus is not whether we keep a list of laws or have a set creed of things to believe. The distinguishing mark is rather whether we see him as the risen Messiah (Matt. 28:18-20; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-11), and whether we follow him: his character and manner, his life and teachings (Matt. 19:16/Mk. 10:17; Matt. 28:18-20). He said, "Go and learn what this means, I want mercy and not sacrifice," and "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; 5:20). If we want some essentials, we should focus on these. And why not? They carry a marvelous promise: "I will be with you always, even to the close of the age!" (Matt. 28:20).

If we start with the person, character, and life of Jesus, several things will happen.
(1) We will be better able to distinguish between what is crucial and what is important. (2) We will do a better job of attending to the "important" matters, whatever we decide on each one. (3) We will more likely treat each other like brothers and sisters instead of like enemies. (4) we will bring a more powerful message to the world, namely something like this:

    "We are followers of the risen Lord, and his Spirit of love, compassion, healing, and justice are at work in us. Let us help you as he has helped us." What a message!

Do we, then, even need to give attention to issues that are not part of the "crucial"? Well, of course we do. As individuals, we are part of Christian and world communities. How do our crucial Christian convictions affect who we are and how we interact with those around us? Do we become political activists? Or should we be political pacifists? What message should we be sending the world on abortion, and the role of women in the home, the church, the workplace, and society? As Christians, we cannot avoid these questions: they are part of the fabric of our lives. We must give our best to them with diligence of study, prayer, and concern.

But as we do so, we must remember that our answers to such questions are not what make us distinctively Christian. They are not crucial, they are merely important. So, instead of canonizing our views and berating each other, let us come to Scripture as brothers and sisters, even where we may have different opinions about important matters. Let us not fight each other. Let us rather serve each other, even when we are not all at the same place in our understandings.

    For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.
    (John 13:15)

Endnotes

1The word "example," here, is the Greek word u(po/deigma commonly translated "pattern, example" (Heb. 8:5; 9:23).

2Of course, some see the veil as still required, or see the entire passage in terms of long vs. short hair of women and men respectively. See, e.g., Ray Wallace, "Scripture and Culture," Dialogue 1:1 (1994) 13 as contrasted to Denny Petrillo, "Scripture, Authority, and Culture" Dialogue 1:1 (1994) 9.

3F. LaGard Smith's popular book, The Cultural Church (20th Century Christian, 1992), is quite guilty of making such accusations, even though the "New Hermeneutic" is never defined in the book. See especially pages 79-88, 105 110, 113, 126, and 204. For a detailed review of his book see Gary D. Collier, Image 9:3 (1993) 23ff. Of course, many other written sources follow this same tack, and LaGard should not alone be saddled with this. For an extreme example, see the two volumes edited by Terry Hightower, Rightly Dividing the Word vols. 1 and 2 (Shenandoah Church of Christ, 1990 and 1991); or numerous issues of the Firm Foundation.

4An extreme example is found in Dave Miller's "The 'New Hermeneutic': A Review and Response," (in Rightly Dividing the Word, vol. 2, ed. by Terry Hightower, 1991, pp. 353-372). Note a couple of quotations: "We don't need a 'new' interpretation of God's words. We simply need to reinstate a devoted determination to comply with what we already understand the Bible to teach" (p. 366). Or again, "Are we being told that though the Bible has been around for 2000 years, we're just now getting around to learning how to interpret it?" (p. 354). I find it interesting that churches of the Restoration Movement have been challenging people in both of these areas for two centuries. But now that some wish to take a closer look at some of our own doctrinal positions, we start responding like the institutional church.

5"Thoughts on Hermeneutics," Dialogue 1:1 (1994) 3.

6In a similar vein, I would apply Matt. 15:1-3 a bit differently than Denny Petrillo, "Scripture, Authority, and Culture," Dialogue 1:1 (1994) 8. Denny is right, I think, that "culture has the tendency to take precedence over Scripture." But I note that Matthew 15 is not so much about culture as about traditional understandings of Scripture. The warning to us all is: if we are not careful, we can become so concerned about our "right" understandings of the law that after a while we won't be able to tell the difference between the law and our understandings. It is just as possible to get swept away "unwittingly" by traditional concerns as by culture.

7So, I am sympathetic with LaGard Smith's warning against such things, as my review of his Cultural Church shows. My demurer is that he and others go entirely too far by slapping nearly everyone who has questions with the taint of selling out to the culture -- a charge that is simply not true, and detrimental to brotherly interchange. Again, see my review of his book, Image 9:3 (1993) 29.

8"Thoughts on Hermeneutics," Dialogue 1:1 (1994) 2.

9For more on this see James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), and my review of it in Restoration Quarterly 23:2 (1980) 121-26.

10Nor am I suggesting that the Bible does not contain commands or examples, or that we should not draw inferences from Biblical statements. Of course there are, and of course we must. But the issue is not whether such things exist, the issue is how we understand and apply them. I have dealt with this already in detail in The Forgotten Treasure: Reading the Bible Like Jesus (Howard, 1993) esp. pp. 175-77.

11See also the parallel texts Matt. 19:16/Mk. 10:17 in which the question is "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus' reply -- to obey the ten commandments -- is augmented by an instruction to self-denial and to "come follow me."

12The word occurs only here in the NT. A related word which can also be translated "necessary" (a)nagkaiÍon) occurs 8 times in the NT, but never in the sense of "the essential" items for salvation.

13See also Acts 15:19-21 and 21:17-26; and note that no reference to this letter is made in Galatians 2, 1 Corinthians 8-10, Romans 14, or elsewhere where it might have been relevant.

14Contrast Ray Wallace, "Scripture and Culture, p. 13, who states about 1 Cor. 14:37: "God could have said, 'If anyone is a sociologist let him recognize that this is culturally acceptable,' but he didn't." Just because Paul didn't make a twentieth century statement to a first century audience does not carry the point.

15And just like Denny Petrillo and Ray Wallace differed (apparently) on the importance of 1 Cor. 11:1-15. Ray took it to be enjoining a "master-plan from Eden . . . [about] a woman's having her head covered with hair longer than a man's hair!" Denny did not seem to take this position. But whether they agree or not, this matter is no longer a matter of "official" concern in most congregations like it was prior to the 1960's. We have simply excluded it from the list of things that "define" us.

 

  
 

Return to
E-Publications Table of Contents