We’re taking some time these days to look at what is sometimes touted as a method for interpreting the Bible. It’s often called CENI, which refers to commands, examples and necessary inference. What some would advocate is a fairly simple hermeneutic: we look for direct commands, approved examples and make necessary inferences from those. Having done so, we have now ascertained the Lord’s will on any given matter. (Usually this method is coupled with the regulative principle, the idea that anything not expressly sanctioned in the New Testament should be considered as disallowed)
My argument is that CENI is insufficient as a hermeneutic. It is subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. Looking at commands, examples and making inferences is not enough to allow us to establish doctrine. I’ve already looked a bit at commands. Now I want to turn our attention to examples.
The question necessarily becomes: Which examples are approved? Who decides which examples are approved?
Let’s take the book of Acts. We start off with a gathering in an upper room. Did you know that some argue that Christians can only hold their assemblies in upper rooms? I’ve seen churches who built an auditorium on the upper floor, refusing to meet on the ground floor. They note that Jesus established the Lord’s Supper in an upper room, we have the example here and the example in Acts 20 (specified in verse 8). No ground floor meetings are ever specified.
At the gathering, a need is seen to choose a new apostle. This is done democratically, of course, since the Bible advocates democracy consistently throughout its pages. (Sorry… sarcasm slipped in again) Two men are nominated, though we aren’t told how. We are told how the final decision is made. Lots are cast, a very common procedure from Old Testament times. Is that example approved? Should we cast lots to choose leaders?
And so it goes through the book of Acts. The only New Testament model we have for funding the work of the local church is revealed to us in chapters 4 and 5: selling personal property to outsiders. I’ve heard churches criticized for having garage sales to raise money; seems like that’s not all that far from the approved example. Or are those examples not approved? It seems a bit hard to tell.
In the book of Acts, fasting accompanies the choosing of leaders, on several different occasions. Chapter 13 models a group fast, either among the leaders of the church of Antioch or within the whole congregation. I know of congregations that have never had a group fast in their entire history.
Leaders chosen are then recognized by the laying on of hands. Again, many churches shy away from this practice. Somehow that example doesn’t get everyone’s stamp of approval. (I was at a church that was installing deacons, and one of the elders announced, “We’re going to substitute the right hand of fellowship for the laying on of hands.” Really? Now we can do substitutions? What other things can be used in lieu of others?)
Other examples can be looked at, but hopefully you see the point. We have no red letters in our Bibles to distinguish the approved examples from the unapproved ones. What we need is a concise rule as to how to know when an example is approved and when it’s not. It needs to be fairly concise, or we lose the simplicity touted by those who favor CENI, you know, the “you just look for commands and examples and follow them” argument.
If you were going to state the rule for determining when an example is considered to be approved, what would you say?
Tim… This is sarcasm at its finest. It proves your point with a punch in the gut, but not so much as to knock a person out. It should just shake them up enough to force them to recognize their inconsistencies.
Scroll down about half-way on John Mark’s article, and you’ll find where he lays out the explanation of the answer to this question from JD Thomas and Alan Highers.
http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/stone-campbell-hermeneutics-iv-regulative-principle-and-churches-of-christ/
Basic answer: An example becomes binding when the reader can infer a command supporting it.
Circular reasoning, we have found you.
A book that had a big impact on my own hermeneutic was F. LaGuard’s Smith’s book, “The Cultural Church.” Even while I was attending the conservative “school of preaching” that I graduated from I started having a lot of issues with CENI. The biggest problem – the inconsistent and completely subjective way in which this hermeneutic was applied. Especially the “NI.”
The deeper I delved into scripture the more I realized that it was the the legal treatise that we were treating it as. The closest thing to a legal document was the last part of the Torah, and we pretty much ignored that. The new Testament was simply a series of letters written to those who were struggling in their faith. Surely they were and are authoritative to those who will follow Christ, but to try to decipher them like a lawyer manipulating a legal code was and is an act in futility.
That’s where Smith’s book had a positive impact on me. I’m pretty sure it was written as a response to the “New Hermeneutic.” In that response he laid out an alternative hermeneutic, “Principle, Purpose and Precedent.” Granted, it’s still far from perfect, but it added the necessary personal interpretation and application that the old Hermeneutic failed so terribly at. Instead of looking for commands, you looked for principles. This opened up more of the authority of scripture for me in that I started to find principles of faithfulness and godly living in passages that were far from commands. And maybe more importantly it returned me to the “Old Testament” and the richness of God’s instruction there because, even though the covenant had changed, God had not, and all the wealth of instruction in the Old Testament still revealed principles of godliness and showed what our Father and creator was like, especially when viewed with the light of the “New Testament.”
In place of Example Smith offered “precedent.” As you’ve already pointed out we don’t take every example as binding, and too often it’s nothing but subjective opinion that leads us to our decisions, but using precedent in place of example I once again found that there was more depth for my study when I went looking for those actions that were seemingly done with the intention of being copied in some way (like say the observance of the Lord’s Supper.) Granted this point of the hermeneutic was still the weakest, but it was strengthened by last step, “Purpose.”
And then to tie it all together Smith offered “Purpose” in place of “necessary inference.” This is the one that probably helped me (and especially me attitude) the most. NI always angered me to no end. The debater in me would scream – “Necessary according to whom!” Instead I would start looking at the purpose of their actions and mine. What am I trying to accomplish and why? And taking that approach helped me give allowance to differing opinions and inferences.
This is too much for one response, I know, but I personally found this approach very helpful. Again, perfect it’s not, but I think that may be the point. A perfect hermeneutic would take too much of our struggle of faith out of the equation.
Sadly, I think “The Cultural Church” was probably Smith’s best work, but it has totally disappeared now (I did a quick search on line because I couldn’t remember the exact title at first and it didn’t show up anywhere – too bad.)
Kenneth,
Here are a few sellers that have “The Cultural Church”:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=f.+lagard+smith&sts=t&tn=cultural+church&x=0&y=0
Grace and peace,
Tim
I was told once that we couldn’t interpret the Bible without CENI. I was a kid but I remember wondering about all those Christians who lived before the Holy CENI and what had happened to them?
You make the argument “that CENI is insufficient as a hermeneutic.” The problem with this is that “CENI” is NOT a hermeneutic. It is not a way of interpreting scripture. It is the foundation to all communication. God, just as any person, communicates His will by telling us what He wants, showing us what He wants. He gives us the ability to take what He is communicated in these ways and then make implications about His will for us. This is the way a parent tells their child what they want, a teacher gives instruction to a student, etc. Once again, CENI is not a way of interpreting scripture, but the way God communicates His will to us.
Thanks, Jason. I hope you have read or will read the entire series.
Grace and peace,
Tim
The example of the upper room is a great example of misuse of CENI. The issue is that CENI is a tool of hermeneutics, not a stand alone hermeneutic process. The upper room issue is a problem as they don’t look at two important concepts of Example. 1. A proper hermeneutic study has to be done, this includes word study which shows there are two words for upper room, and only 1 often denotes a second floor. 2. An example has to be able to be followed to be binding. If each Christian cannot follow the example, the example cannot be binding. Not everyone has the ability of a 2nd floor to worship. Go to Africa, primarily the remote villages of Kenya, you cannot have a second floor, so that means they couldn’t do that. 3. In order for an example to be binding there cannot be a counter example. As far as worship being in the upper room, we see examples of worship in homes, so therefore the upper room has a counter example, and wouldn’t be an example. Most who try to use CENI don’t use it as a tool of hermeneutics, but as their “hermeneutic process”.
Thought I would weigh in on this…late of course. It is argued that “CENI is not a way of interpreting scripture, but the way God communicates His will to us.’
And yet the only way that God declared his will was through commands in the OT.
Examples and inferences were not commands or to be followed.
If examples were to be followed, then the fact that many of the Fathers had many wives should be something to be followed, even though was never commanded, it must be followable.
Daniel was a Godly man who said three prayers towards Jerusalem, so surely the rest of Israel did this as well.
When we get to the NT we find many examples and inferences that we follow to the extent we want to follow them. The Lord’s Supper, is called a supper, and was done at supper time, which would have been after Sabbath and in the afternoon-evening, since days were evening to evening. Most protestant churches observe the Lord’s Supper in the morning time, thus not applying example or necessary inference.
Even Jesus says, “If you love me you will do my commandment”, not example or inference.
While examples and inferences may be relevant, they are not command and thus not law.
And we apply our will in determining what is to be followed.