Most of us in the Restoration Movement are familiar with this formula. It’s often abbreviated CENI. (Though Brad used CEIe yesterday; I may have to get him to explain that one.) It’s the idea that God’s will for Christians is communicated in three ways in the New Testament: direct commands from the Lord for the church (primarily communicated through the apostles), examples from the early church that were not condemned by the apostles (therefore seen as approved), and inferences that are deemed to be necessary.
Originally, CENI was applied, along with the regulative principle, as a means of determining what was and what was not “authorized” worship. (Jay Guin gives an excellent introduction and overview on his blog) It should also be noted that CENI existed in American culture in the 1800s outside of the church; Edward Fudge notes examples of legal cases which call for “express statute, approved precedent or necessary inference.”
At some point, many came to see commands, examples and inferences as a hermeneutic model for interpreting the New Testament. (And, it should be pointed out, most who appeal to this hermeneutic would only be interested in studying the New Testament to know God’s will for Christians. Some would insist on leaving out the gospels, along with the Old Testament) CENI does not work as a hermeneutic. It is insufficient. It needs help from other concepts like context, literary genre, etc.
I want to take some time to analyze CENI as a basis for interpreting Scripture and establishing authority for Christian practices. Lots of people have done this, but I want to go through the exercise for two reasons. One is the fact that there is at this time an active group of insightful commenters; I learn much from the interaction that goes on. The second reason is that my ideas always need testing, and I find the Kitchen to be a wonderful place for critics to examine my half-baked thoughts.
So let the games begin. Tell me about your experiences, both good and bad, with the concept of direct commands, approved examples and necessary inferences.
Well, I began to notice the selective use of the CEI hermeneutical method when I realized that there were many commands and examples given in the New Testament that our fellowship did not adhere to. Then one day I heard a well known preacher/evangelist among our fellowship defending the CEI approach. In his defensive speech, he spoke about the way we preachers need to determine what is direct, approved, and necessary. That is when I realized how subjective this hermeneutic was. I also found it troubling how in scripture, we are taught to follow Jesus yet (as you pointed) the Gospels were, for the most part, discounted in this hermeneutical approach. So this is what propelled me on a quest for a better way to read and appropriate scripture, which is now grounded in the life of Jesus Christ (theologically speaking, it is a Trinitarian-Christological way of reading scripture).
A big help in finding a better hermeneutic was taking a graduate course at Harding School of Theology called “Theological Hermeneutics” taught by John Mark Hicks (if he ever writes a book on this, it will be phenomenal). Readers may also find Thomas H. Olbricht’s book, “Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in Churches of Christ” which is an easy to read, humorous, and semi-autobiographical sketch that addresses his own shift away from the CEI hermeneutic towards a more theological approach.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Tim,
Perhaps “CEIe” meant Command, Example, Inference, and expedient???
i think CENI + Regulative Principle can only be successful on the assumption that the NT was designed/intended or can be properly treated as a sort of recipe card or blueprint. i think there are good reasons to think it is neither.
Incidentally, why haven’t CoC’s historically called it the “Regulative Principle” and instead used the term “Principle of Authority”? Anyone know? i don’t see a clear distinction in meaning between the two.
–guy
This may sound strange coming from me, but I too see many holes in the CENi argument. However, I’m not throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are commands in the New Testament, some binding, others questionable. And Paul did say to teach things based on his example. But which examples? And yes, necessary inference does exist. We are told to go and baptize people, which necessitates coming up with a place to do the baptizing. But there’s got to be more, for the simple fact that not every situation is accounted for. And I totally hate and reject the “expedience” argument — totally subjective, from my experience. People can justify anything through expedience, and condemn others who use that same argument to justify things that they don’t agree with. And then there’s the slippery slope you’ve discussed, which is mostly a necessary inference kind of argument. Of course, as we can see from past blogs, we can’t even agree on whether a command is binding or not, so expedience may be the least of our concerns!
While I have given up on the CEI hermeneutic as a way of reading and appropriating scripture, I should be clear that I still believe there are commands in scripture which cannot be treated as optional.
I don’t see a problem with acknowledging commands, examples, and necessary inferences. Each element has its place in understanding God’s will. But you are correct, Tim, in noting that they are insufficient unless combined with a knowledge of the context, literary genre, etc.
One of my (American) friends emailed my pastor the day after my baptism to take him to task for “delaying” my baptism (ie not baptising me the instant I requested it). His email accused my pastor of not taking baptism seriously and put the salvation of converts in jeopardy.
Did Jesus give us an important principle of understanding the Scriptures in John 5:39-40 when he said to the Jews, “You search the Scriptures, because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life”?
Here, He spoke specifically of the Old Testament Scriptures, the very Scriptures we have almost completely discounted in our search for “Biblical authority.” Perhaps looking for Jesus in the Scriptures (Old or New Testaments) is a better way for us to read our Bibles.
Amen, Jerry.. that’s my hermeneutic. I fliter all Scripture through the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus. If it doesn’t sift through (using a baking analogy here) then I have to shake it up and reconsider..
Regarding the role of women for example.. if I look at Paul’s instructions to the Ephesian and Corinthian churches regarding the need for women to be quiet, and I look at how Jesus treated women, I see a lack of harmony. Why was the Samaritan woman the first to go preaching the good news about Jesus (and recorded for all eternity as such by the apostle Jesus loved best in John 4) IF women are to be silent “in the churches”? It makes no sense. So, I need to go back to the epistles and reconsider that Paul was writing a command to all women for all time.
Jesus empowered women, encouraged them and treated them in counter-cultural ways. We need to take that as our basis for interpreting women’s roles, NOT an interpretation of Paul’s epistles to 2 of the churches which address specific local problems.
“filter”…
Wendy,
I know that you are passionate about women’s issues, so I will tread carefully. As you look at Jesus’ life, look at what he didn’t do as well. What he didn’t say.
It was the perfect time to put a woman into a place of leadership. He didn’t do it.
It was the perfect time to condemn the “injustice” perpetrated toward women by the Jews. He didn’t do it.
The story of the Samaritan woman says nothing about women being silent or not being silent in the church.
Jesus modeled respect for women. He treated them as valuable humans. We should do the same.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, the story of the Samaritan woman does not say anything about women being silent (quiet?) in the church or not (umm.. define where “in the church” is… ) But when I consider the two passages in the light of one other, there is incongruity if I interpret Paul’s instructions as a command for women to be silent (quiet?) in formal meetings (what about informal ones?) of the church. And my default is Jesus..
Wendy,
I have grown up in churches where women did not speak from the pulpit in the assembly. (getting as specific as I can) That in no way inhibited them from going out and telling their neighbors about Jesus, as the Samaritan woman did.
No incongruity at all. I think that Paul would have encouraged the disruptive women of Corinth to share their faith outside of the assembly and still have told them to be silent. (Just as he could tell the tongues speakers and prophets to be quiet in the same circumstance)
I don’t know your situation. Is possible that you’ve been in churches that taught women they couldn’t share the good news with other people. If so, I definitely understand your passion for reversing the repression of women.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim/Wendy
i don’t have anything particular to add to the interpretative portion of this sub-topic. But it strikes me as i read that even a good standard or practice can be used oppressively, can’t it? This seems to be a trend among Pharisees. It’s not that they were dead wrong on everything. It’s not like everything they taught was oppressive or abusive in the nature of the case. But they took good practices or ideas and used them oppressively. Surely a value like, say, modesty is not in itself a bad idea or harmful. But surely there are present day examples of cultures which turn that value into a tool of oppression. i just wonder if this isn’t an important distinction worth making in these kinds of debates.
–guy
Tim, there is a huge difference between how the situations inside and outside your parentheses have been handled. No one *ever* assumed that the disruptive tonguespeakers and disruptive prophets were to universally and forever be silent in the assembly.
Nick,
I’m in agreement with you about 1 Corinthians 14. Like too many things, it’s been completely stripped from its context. [Actually, though, our brotherhood does favor the silencing of tongues speakers and prophets… despite what verse 39 says.] The complicating part of that chapter is admittedly the phrase “as in all the churches.” I think that’s where the “universality argument” comes in.
None of that changes the fact that John 4 does not contradict 1 Corinthians 14 in any way. The fact that a woman shared the good news with her friends and neighbors does not mean that she was/was not silent in the assembly.
Grace and peace,
Tim
How about the women who taught the apostles the truth of the Resurrection?
Nick,
I guess they would loosely fit within Wendy’s “Jesus” parameter, even if he isn’t directly in the scene. Or are you just taking this to a general discussion of the role of women?
If it’s a full-fledged tangent, I guess we get back to what “en ekklesia” means in 1 Corinthians 14, if it means any time “2 or more” are gathered or if it refers to something more formal. You’ve shared the view, if I remember correctly, that it refers to any time Christians are together. I see it as a formal assembly (similar to a synagogue meeting).
Grace and peace,
Tim
Agreed – that’s where the complicating part hits, and while I have ideas about it, I won’t pretend that they have any kind of silver bullet quality about them.
Several things in this passage trouble me.
1) Why do publishers put the paragraph break between “peace” and “as in all the churches?”
2) Where does the Law say that women “are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission?” One would expect a Pharisee of Pharisees, trained at the feet of Gamaliel, who fills his letters with quotation upon quotation and allusion after allusion to the Hebrew Scriptures, to provide *some* evidence for this assertion, especially to a Greek church woefully inexperienced in those Scriptures.
3) What makes it *universally* shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly, but not shameful for them to pray aloud (1 Cor 11)… not shameful to “speak to one another” (Eph 5, Col 3) in the assembly?
4) What if a married woman has no husband trained in The Way? (1 Cor 7:13)
In Corinth, en ekklesia probably does mean something more than an evening get-together. I think that in the earliest days of Acts 2 & 4, en ekklesia was probably less formal (I’m still uncomfortable with using the word “formal” to describe something for which no “form” is actually described anywhere in the NT, but I know what you mean). I’m sure it does mean an appointed gathering time for learning and celebration.
What then do we do with the mandate in 1 Tim 2, where en ekklesia is conspicuously lacking? The women in 1 Tim 2 are encouraged to adorn themselves in good works, which hardly seems like something they’d be doing en ekklesia. How do we reconcile the women teaching Christ’s own appointed Jewish leaders of the movement the truth of the Resurrection, if indeed the Law says they are to be silent and Paul doesn’t permit such teaching?
Nick,
Just a thought… feel free to poke holes in this. Don’t you see a difference between teaching and communicating a message from someone? If the women did like Jesus and pointed out all the Old Testament Scriptures as to why Jesus had to be raised, well, I would tend to agree that they were teaching. But if they came and said, “An angel told us that Jesus has been raised,” that doesn’t really seem like teaching, does it? (More akin to Rhoda telling the gathered believers that Peter was at the door)
Here, of course, is where we bring in Priscilla. Was it different because her husband was involved? Was it different because Apollos was unbaptized? Or does her case violate the traditional understanding of 1 Timothy 2?
Grace and peace,
Tim
I can see a difference, but announcing the news of the Resurrection is, by definition, being an evangelist, isn’t it? So perhaps they preached the gospel to the apostles… but that opens up its own can of worms! The NT sort of categorizes teaching and preaching differently, but we don’t.
1 Cor 12 describes both teaching and preaching as spiritual gifts, but our tradition has neatly circumvented that issue by teaching that the Spirit no longer presents His people with gifts.
Obviously, I believe the case of Priscilla and Apollos presents us with a clear violation of the traditional understanding of 1 Tim 2. But I’ve been mistaken before, and confidently expect to be again.
PS- NAUGHTY Luke, omitting Apollos’ immersion! It’s almost as if Luke thinks that being filled with the Spirit is the more relevant concept (since he puts it in Ananias’ mouth in Acts 9, as well)!
If I could just throw a kink in the whole discussion on Jesus, women, and ministry…
In scripture, which is written for our instruction, we have the words of a woman being spoken in Luke 1.46-55, so every time we read that passage in church we are being taught by a woman (in some sense).
I have seen humans use reason to prove that humans are authorized to use reason. That seems to be a fallacious circular argument. If so, it ironically proves humans cannot use reason.
It seems therefore we can only accept direct command as authorization to use approved example or necessary inference.
Do we have such a command? I haven’t seen one.
Pingback: 13 Church-of-Christ CENIs Authorizing Women to Speak in the Worship Assembly (Commands, Examples, Necessary Inferences) – Authentic Theology — Steve Gardner's Divinity School Blog