Marcionism & Churches of Christ: What Value, REALLY, is the "Old Testament?: #4 How Did We Get Here?

Marcionism & Churches of Christ Or What Value, Really, is the "Old Testament?": How We Got Here, Part 4

The dispensational hermeneutic first articulated by Alexander Campbell in his Sermon on the Law (read more here) has become part of the DNA of Churches of Christ. Classic hermeneutic manuals like Dungan's Hermeneutics devote considerable energy in establishing this hermeneutic while virtually ignoring "commands, examples and inferences." B. W. Johnson further inculcated this hermeneutic through his widely read and reprinted sermon (on both sides of the keyboard ironically) series in 1899 called "The Two Covenants." Probably among the most influential means of traditioning this point of view though has been the Jule Miller film strips.

There is a legitimate distinction between covenants. There is history, movement and development in the Story of God. Yet sometimes, it seems, that such emphasis has been placed on the distinction between the Testaments and even the radical abolition of the "Old" Testament that some (perhaps many) quietly developed the theology that the First Testament is irrelevant at best. Perhaps an example of this would be the famous preacher N. B. Hardeman in his Tabernacle Sermons.

Let it be remembered, brethren, that you and I, as Gentiles ... were never subjected to the law of Moses. It was never applicable unto us. Its promises were never ours, neither its threats nor punishments. Strange, it is not, therefore--passingly so--that, notwithstanding two thousand years have passed since it was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, there perhaps are peopole to-night, never included in it, that are blinded, deceived, and deluded by the thought that they are amenable to it? ... On the pages of God's word it is clearly declared that the law is blotted out, wiped away, stricken from existence, become dead, that we might serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" ("Rightly Dividing the Word the Word of Truth," Vol 1, p.11)

The language of Hardeman is harsh and even extreme. How would folks in the pew hear this language directed against the "Old" Testament? There is no doubt that NBH believed the Hebrew Bible was inspired. But the impression left is one that says the OT is of limited importance. The tendency to codify positions arising out of debate is all to common yeilding woeful consequences.

It should be pointed out that Hardeman's position, as quoted above, rests on a serious misunderstanding of not only the "Old" Testament but also of Colossians 2.14. What was "nailed to the cross" was not the Old Testament but the cheirographon which refers to the I.O.U/sin-debt that we have incurred not the Hebrew Bible or even the "Old Covenant."

It is one thing to make the claim that we "believe" in the "Old Testament" and quite another to take it seriously enough to let it shape and mold our faith and life. If we take the "New Testament" seriously then we will have to take the Hebrew Bible seriously enough to let it even impart "doctrine" to us (cf. 2 Tim 3.16). Rather than being an addendum that we might get around to at some point the Hebrew Bible is essential to the Christian faith.

Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Anomalies in the Pattern, Lingering Questions

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?

Jesus and the Synagogue

The synagogue figures prominently in the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. We read in Luke 4 that it was Jesus' "custom" to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath (v.16). The book of Acts also testifies to the importance of the synagogue for even diaspora Jews. The Talmud claims there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem alone prior to the destruction of the Temple.

Like the cup in the Passover, the synagogue presents certain anomalies to the one who sees the Scripture through pattern eyes. There is no doubt that the synagogue was of vital importance to Judaism in Jesus' day. There is no doubt that Jesus voluntarily and, apparently, approvingly associated himself with the synagogue. The question to be asked is where was the biblical authority for its existence? There is not a shred of evidence of the synagogue in the "Old Testament." There is no evidence that it existed at all in what we might call "Old Testament" times. The synagogue was a post-exilic religious development among the Jews. No one knows who started them or why ... though there are speculations. The first mention of a synagogue in an inscription comes from Egypt (not Palestine!) and dates to the 3rd century B. C. (cf. Eric M. Meyers, "Synagogue" Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol 6, p. 252).

Why did Jesus participate in this unbiblical institution?

Jesus and the Festival of Lights

The last anomaly I call attention to is Jesus' participation in the unbiblical religious festival of Lights. The imagery of this festival dominates John 10.22-39 and is mentioned explicitly in v.22 (i.e. Dedication, NIV). This fest celebrated the liberation and salvation of the Jews from the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Temple was defiled by pagan sacrifices (the abomination of desolation of Daniel). In 167 B.C. the Maccabees regained control of the Temple which was celebrated in the Festival of Lights. One can read the adventures that lead up to the liberation of the Temple in 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha. There is no biblical support for this celebration. There is no command, example or inference by which the Jews could have justified the creation of this religious holy day. Yet Jesus is in the temple for this feast. John fashions his story of Jesus with that festival as the backdrop to teach the truth about Jesus. I can only conclude that Jesus did not have a problem in praising God for the deliverance brought about by the Maccabees! There certainly is no record of him saying this was wrong.

The claims of those who assert that the NT itself is a constitutional pattern/blue print fail to demonstrate their case exegetically. Jesus certainly respected biblical authority as he was the Living Word itself. Yet he did not have a problem participating in the traditions of his people even when there was clearly no authority, as some want to define it, for that tradition. Thus he drank from the cup, he taught in the synagogue, and he celebrated the feast of Dedication.

Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Christian Chronicle Reviews A Gathered People

I learned on Wednesday that the Christian Chronicle published a review of A Gathered People: Revisioning the Assembly as Transforming Encounter in the February 2008 issue on p.36. Mark Powell, professor at Harding Graduate School, penned an article nearly an entire page for the Chronicle.

I must say that I was delighted with the positive tone that Powell takes with our book. I think he correctly sees that we articulate an alternative vision of worship to what has been foisted on the Stone-Campbell Movement through the "Five-Acts Model" and the "Edification Model." Powell's only real criticism is that we did not wrestle with the issue of congregational singing in public worship. That is an omission but we were seeking to wrestle instead with the fundamental nature of the assembly. I like the closing two paragraphs of Powell and will quote them here

"Too often discussions of worship revolve around peripheral issues that, even if important, never lead to a deeper understanding of the assembly. Hicks, Melton and Valentine have provided a valuable service by transcending the worship wars and presenting a compelling theology of worship.

Our corporate assemblies would be richer and more spiritually forming if every minister and informed church leader would read and prayerfully meditate on the vision of worship presented in this book."

I am grateful to Dr. Powell for his kind words and I thank God for putting a little bright light into my life right now.

If you do not get the Chronicle you can read all of Powell's review here.

Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Marcionism & Churches of Christ: What Value, REALLY, is the 'Old Testament?" How Did We Get Here, Campbell & His Sermon

Marcion & Churches of Christ: What Value is the “Old Testament?” Pt. 3 How We Got Here? Campbell and His “Sermon on the Law”

You can read part 1 and part 2 through these links

“[T]here is an essential difference between law and gospel—the Old Testament and the New. No two words are more distinct in their signification than law and gospel. They are contradistinguished under various names in the New Testament. The law is denominated ‘the letter’ … The gospel is denominated ‘the Spirit’ …” (Alexander Campbell, Sermon on the Law)

Introduction

Alexander Campbell’s sermon on the Lord’s Day, September 1, 1816 at the annual meeting of the Redstone Baptist Association was a pivotal event in the hermeneutical and theological development of the Stone-Campbell tradition. Dubbed “The Sermon on the Law,” this speech has wielded as much in influence among the heirs of Campbell as either the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery or the Declaration and Address … and in Churches of Christ likely even more.

Overview of Campbell’s Sermon

At heart the “Sermon on the Law” is a polemic against prevailing uses of the Hebrew Bible on the Frontier in America. Campbell wants to reject the leading view of the “OT” assigned three functions to the Testament: 1) producing knowledge of sin; 2) restraining sinners; and 3) stimulating one to obedience.

The main body of the sermon covers four points. First AC establishes his meaning of the word “law” which covered both the Torah and the OT canon itself. He rejects the idea of “moral” law and ceremonial law. Second he discusses what law could not accomplish. Third he explains why law could not do what is described in #2. And finally he pointed out that Jesus brought an end to the law.

From these AC draws five conclusions about the role and nature of the Old Testament in the church. First he draws a sharp distinction between law and gospel. The old covenant was law and the new was not pure and simple. Second Christians are no longer under the law as a rule of life. Third, the preaching of law to prepare a person for Christianity is not necessary. Fourth, all arguments drawn from the OT to support a wide array of practices are illegitimate. Finally, Jesus and not Moses is the supreme object of love, affection and obedience for disciples.

In this Sermon, and in various other essays, AC develops the notion of three dispensations: the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian in place of the prevailing Calvinistic point of view. Campbell, by analogy, compares these dispensations to the stages of spiritual maturity: infancy, childhood, and adulthood (or also to starlight, moonlight and sunlight). Based on Campbell’s second rule of interpretation the Christian dispensation began in Acts 2. Thus the Gospels and Jesus’ teaching actually belongs, ironically, to a dispensation characterized as childhood.

Brief Evaluation

Campbell’s Sermon exploded like a Hydrogen bomb in its day. He was accused of not believing in the Old Testament. Later in his life AC himself would confess that his effort was not perfect yet it still represented his basic view. There are at least two very positive things that flow from this Sermon that we can be grateful for. First, AC demands that context matters in biblical interpretation. Context, both historical and literary, are essential for a proper reading of any text. Campbell’s heirs have much to learn from him in this insistence. Second, Campbell provides a sort of redemptive-historical approach to the Story of God. There are some affinities here with such contemporary approaches as that advocated by N. T. Wright in his The Last Word. We need, I believe, to regain a fresh appreciation for the historical (and unified) flow for redemptive history.

Despite its strengths there are a number of serious shortcomings to ACs hermeneutical and therefore his theological approach. The first is that it is simplistic at best, and wrong at worst, to simply equate the “old covenant” with the “Old Testament.” And though the dispensational grid can help the student remember historical setting this approach also, ironically, ignores context in two areas. First this approach almost always (as it did in AC himself) reads the “OT” through the eyes of Paul or Hebrews. This causes the student to forget that Paul and the Hebrew writer had his own historical context that needs to be taken seriously in interpreting what each says about the Hebrew Bible … in the end the OT itself is nearly silenced as a witness to its own purpose(s). Second it ignores the literary context that demonstrates there are profound continuities between these “dispensations.” They are not simply fresh works with no connection to what was before.

Another critical failing in Campbell’s reading of the Law (i.e. OT in his view) was the conceptualizing of the Mosaic covenant as a legal arrangement between God and his People. This lies at the basis of the charge that the OT is “law” and the NT is “grace.” But according to the Story itself covenant is not simply a legal arrangement and such a gross misunderstanding of covenant. The basis of Israel’s life with Yahweh was grace alone (some will balk at the word "alone" here but it is true nonetheless). Israel was “saved” in the Exodus not Sinai. Exodus comes before Sinai, Calvary comes before Pentecost. Grace comes before faith … or obedience. It always has and always will. Love is the essence of the Hebrew Bible.

In addition to the covenant of love there are several other trajectories that are dependent upon the Hebrew Bible for grounding in Christian life, reflection and practice. Here is a short list for your own reflection

God

Holiness

The Goodness of Creation

Community/People of God (the solidarity of the people of God)

Worship (yes … worship!)

Christology (the story of the Savior is impossible without the Hebrew Bible)

Conclusion(s)

Our religious tradition (yes it is a tradition) has lived with a polemically driven hermeneutic for reading the Hebrew Bible … and even the Gospels. This debate reading has resulted, often, in a limited understanding of huge portions of the Story of God in Scripture. And as true children of Campbell we have often simply read portions of Romans, Galatians or Hebrews for our “understanding” of three-fifths of the Bible. But the Hebrew Bible cannot be simply reduced to Paul’s first century debates about the inclusion of Gentiles in the promises.

There are major weaknesses in the prevailing view of the role and authority of the Hebrew Bible in most Churches of Christ. Yet there are also some helpful pointers in Campbell himself to a richer, and more nuanced, place for the “OT” in the Christian faith. Embracing the redemptive-historical framework and unified narrative of the Story will pay rich dividends for our spiritual health in the 21^st century. There are two Testaments but there is only one Bible. There are stages and development in Scripture but there is only one Story. In future blogs we will explore this in more detail.

Seeking Shalom,

Bobby Valentine

P.S. I have been doing my morning prayer time using Gary Holloway's new Daily Disciple: A One-Year Devotional Guide which includes daily meditations from writers like Campbell, Stone, Scott, Garrison, Johnson, and Richardson. So far the selections have been meaningful to my life journey. Daily Disciple is published by Leafwood Publishers.

Read More

Modernism: Lure of Heresy (A Review)

Modernism: The Lure of Heresy

Memory is essential to living healthily in the world. History is simply memory writ large. If this is true then Peter Gay has done us a favor in writing his work Modernism: The Lure of Heresy, From Baudelaire to Beckett and Beyond (Norton 2008). Modernism is 510 pages of spritely written text with numerous illustrations throughout the book. Since I have had trouble sleeping this book has kept me company for the past couple of weeks.

Gay is a highly regarded cultural historian with great books on the Enlightenment (The Enlightenment: An Interpretation) and Schnitzler's Century: The Making of Middle-Class Culture 1815-1914 and many more to his credit.

"Modernism is far easier to exemplify than to define" is how Gay begins his book. In this particular book modernism is exemplified through the arts. We encounter impressionism and abstract art. We encounter a "new way of seeing" the world that Modernism brought about. Gay takes us into the brave new world of novels and poetry and then music and dance. We walk with Frank Lloyd Wright and Charles-Edouard Jeanneret (known as Le Corbusier) and listen as they declare that a "house is a machine for living in." We watch as stage is transformed and the emergence of the "only all-modern art" in film (such as Citizen Kane)

Gay insightfully details the assaults on Modernism that came from the far right and left in Nazism/Facism and Stalinism. Finally he speaks to the emergence of Pop Art which, in his mind, has lead to the death of Modernism as a cultural movement. Placing the boundaries of Modernism from about 1850ish to the 1960s one can look back and see that indeed the world went through a revolution in that century and is still reeling from it.

One feature I really like about this book is that though Gay is a "fan" of Modernism and even celebrates some of its excesses he does not hide its failings. One theme that comes through periodically is the sheer arrogance of Modernism. Modernists had many dissimilarities but they all had one thing in common "they staged a humorously aggressive self-liberation from prescribed ancestor worship." Put plainly that is a repudiation of history. As Frederic Bazille declared "What I do here will at least have the merit of not resembling anybody." The shackles of the past were to be discarded as utterly irrelevant to "modern man." Another manifestation of the sheer arrogance of Modernism that is evident throughout the book is that it was not a "democratic movement." Most Modernists had contempt for the average person and even on the people who would purchase their art or buy into the world view (which nearly all of us have btw!). Gay is enough of a chastened historian that he can write truthfully yet sympathetically "It may be that the greatest illusion they treasured was their conviction that they had overcome all illusions." One of the lasting illnesses of Modernism is the sovereignty of individualism. One did not have to be part of the avant-garde to buy into the illusions of Modernism.

One of the great ironies of Modernism is that much of its creative genius has now become "traditional." In fact many Modernistic cultural works are now "classics!" Most college educated folks have read James Joyce (Ulysses), T. S. Eliot (The Waste Land), Virginia Woolf (To the Lighthouse) or have viewed Edvard Munch's The Scream or Monet's Impression, Sunrise or Brancusi's Bird in Space. Most folks know Wright's Fallingwater or the Guggenheim. They thought they were escaping history only to became part of it ... Irony indeed!

Gay's Modernism is not a perfect book. His love affair with Saint Sigmund is plainly evident as it is in most of his writing but this is not unbearable or offensive as you go through his very readable prose. And no doubt some specialist out there will disagree with some of his interpretations. Yet I learned a lot from Gay and what I already knew took on deeper significance. Reading Modernism has helped me tap into the "memory" of just how we got where we are and why it matters. I can recommend this book as a way of exegeting the time and place that God has put me.

Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Casting Crowns - Praise You in the Storm (Thoughtful Song)

Thoughtful song ...

Read More

Trusting God ... A Thought and a Prayer

Trusting God ... A Thought and a Prayer

"Let us trust our little selves with the Lord; and rest not, till by faith in the promised Holy Spirit and by incessant prayer we receive and be filled with it, like they were of old, in the ancient order of things." (Barton W. Stone in the Christian Messenger in 1843)

Easier said than done God. I am trying to trust my little self with you but I am dying to walk by sight. Act in my life and my family's life today. Grant your Holy Spirit so that I may discern, understand and do your will. A drop of mercy is mighty indeed and we simply covet a crumb from your table of grace ...

Bobby Valentine

Read More