For me, 1 Corinthians 16 is the poster child for the “CENI doesn’t work as a hermeneutic” campaign. The first part of that chapter has been very popular among those who rely on commands, examples and necessary inferences for their biblical interpretation. The first paragraph of that chapter reads:
“Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” (1 Corinthians 16:1–4)
We have a command: put something aside and store it up (on the first day of the week).
We have an inference: for this to be a collection, one would assume that the church would be gathered. Therefore, we can infer that the church gathered on the first day of the week.
Many find another inference: the collection is “for the saints.” Therefore, the collection is for the church and its needs.
That’s all well and good, unless we’re interested in what this passage is saying. This is rather obviously a special collection, one that we read of numerous times in the New Testament: a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. This was not the gathering of funds for the Corinthian church to use locally. This particular collection seems to have been of limited duration, since Paul says that he doesn’t want collections to have to be done when he is there. This mode of gathering money is something that Paul had taught in Galatia and now in Macedonia; it’s not something that he has taught everywhere he has gone. It’s not standard practice in the church. And if we’re going to follow these teachings to the letter, we’re going to have to hold our funds until Paul comes and they can be sent on to Jerusalem!
So how did we come to use it for our regular Sunday offering? In the first place, since we can’t start at zero, we started where we already were. We took a practice that was already in place (collections on Sunday) and looked for biblical support. That sounds good, but isn’t it healthier to start with the Bible and work out, rather than the other way around? Rather than saying, “How can I justify this?,” we would need to ask, “If I had never heard of this practice, would I come upon it merely by reading Scripture?”
But starting where we were, we then applied the subjective hermeneutic of CENI to make the passage say what we needed it to say, rather than the original message to speak.
Can CENI be applied objectively as a hermeneutic? It’s hard for me to see that. There are too many decisions that need to be made that go beyond the scope of CENI. Could CENI be included as part of an objective hermeneutic? Yeah, maybe. But on it’s own, it’s merely a too for making scripture say what the interpreter desires.
Great post, Tim. This was the first wall to fall for me when I began looking for actual contextual support for the “five acts of worship.” In fact, this very thing taught me that you must look at the greater context of particular verses.
I’ve taught this in classes and from the pulpit and still had men who were in the class/sermon stand up on the same day and announce “We have a command to lay by in store….” CENI runs deep.
Tim,
It strikes me that this is a particular case (1Cor 16) where the CoC has traditionally been inconsistent in its hermeneutic. As you point out, this command comes with a particular purpose attached–for the saints. This is a command about how to conduct a collection for poverty relief of Christians abroad, yes? But the CoC has been perfectly happy to detach that purpose from the act itself in this case. However, when it comes to baptism, the CoC wouldn’t dream of detaching the purpose (for the forgiveness of sins) from the command (be baptized). In the latter case, the purpose is viewed as so integral to the command that lacking that purpose is judged to be failing to obey that command. In the former case, not so much.
Also something that always bugged me–where does 1Cor 16 say anything about silver trays and prayers beforehand? That bit definitely seems like addition, no?
–guy
Tim, I agree with the gist of this, and historically the “here’s how we came to this conclusion” may be accurate. I don’t know. I wasn’t there! Anyway, I can say that this isn’t how it’s taught. Here’s how it’s always been laid out in the congregations I’ve attended (heavy CENI usage). 1 – we know the church needs funds to operate (see Acts, first couple of chapters). 2 – We know we’re supposed to be cheerful givers (2 Cor. 9:7) By both command and inference, this means we are to “give,” not “fundraise.” 3 – What authorized ways do we find in the NT for a church to get its money? There are only two ways found. One is to give money at any time to the church (again, see Acts, first couple of chapters, Ananias and Sapphira, Barnabas, etc. — this isn’t taught often). The second is 1 cor. 16:1-2. Even though you correctly pointed out that this was for a specific need for a limited time (NEVER taught where I attended), CENI teaches this is an approved example of a permissable or authorized method of raising funds. As Jeremy pointed out, this was one of those CENI passages that was one of the first to fall for me, too. It obviously doesn’t teach what many CENI advocates say it does. And I’ve often wondered, where did Judas get the money when he was the Treasurer for Jesus (John 12 & 13).
“Also something that always bugged me–where does 1Cor 16 say anything about silver trays and prayers beforehand? That bit definitely seems like addition, no?”
Guy – trays are an expedient. I’m sure Tim’s working up something on that next, eh?
Travis,
Maybe it’s only in Texas that we get the “We’ve been commanded to lay by in store each first day of the week.” I haven’t heard it taught as one acceptable way of raising funds. I’ve heard it taught as the only God-established way of obtaining money for the church. (It’s been explained to me that Barnabas, etc., is only a means for individuals to give; the approved method for congregational giving is found in 1 Corinthians 16.) It is one of the five acts that MUST be present in every assembly.
Few people seem to think about the fact that there is a big difference between “lay by in store” and “lay in the collection plate.” But in numerous congregations in Texas, this is a God-given commandment.
In fact, I remember the case of a sister who wanted to give once a month (since she got her Social Security check once a month). The blatant sinfulness of such behavior was shown to her through 1 Corinthians 16:2 — it says the first day of EVERY week, not once a month.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Guy,
Trays and prayers are “expedients.” Like microphones, church houses, pews, songbooks, Bibles, pulpits, baptisteries…
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim –
It’s taught that way in Kentucky, too. Five acts, mandatory. You’re right, Barnabas is an individual taking initiative. Individuals can give any time (as long as they still give on Sunday). The church cannot solicit on any day except Sunday. We have people now who want to set up automatic drafts through their financial institution. This would have been a problem where I used to attend, since financial insitutions and the federal reserve are closed on Sundays. The transaction would have to clear on a Monday or Tuesday, if there’s a Monday holiday. Also, here’s another bone to chew on: elderly and sick people who cannot attend worship on Sunday were still expected to give their contribution “to further the work of the church.” Someone would stop by their house to pick up their contribution. Yet this same group would not allow the Lord’s Supper to be given to that person at their home, since that was to be done only as a congregational worship item. Huh?
More than a hundred years ago, one of my ancestors — Alfred Ellmore — insisted that the acts of worship were specified in order at the end of Acts 2 and that we should not depart from them. He also defined “fellowship” (“koinonia”) there as referring exclusively to the collection.
That’s what it call comes down to: definitions, interpretations, hermeneutics. The CENI hermeneutic assumes that everything in scripture was intended to serve as law, even if coded or shrouded in silence. In the absence of a legalistic mindset, a law of silence for what one wants to forbid and a doctrine of expedience for what one wants to permit, CENI doesn’t work as a way of looking at scripture at all.
Unless, perhaps, you’re in the Pentateuch.
While this “5 steps to salvation” was the first restoration man-made created doctrine to fall for me, the issue of the weekly offering was revealed recently to be just as biblically baseless (at least regarding command). It is clear the 1 Cor 16 text was a special contribution; and it was for fellow believers who were suffering with food and other shortages. (Note their first priority was not to spend their money building wells for unbelievers half way around the world. Their giving was for the Body as primacy, or, as first importance). However, this is not to say weekly giving is bad; all it says is that it is not a command.
What is pointed out by Jesus and Paul, interestingly enough, is that those who teach get money/provision from those who are listening (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18; 1 Cor 9:3-12). It is clear that Jesus and his followers had money and this came from supporters who listened to their teaching and followed them around (Luke 8:3). This is probably what Judas was carrying around.
I do think members of local bodies have a responsibility to give for the operations of the church. The question is, is paying off a million dollar mortgage a responsible endeavor (whole other ball of wax). I think the giving is for appropriate provision for not only those who served in teaching, but for those who are in need – first within the Body – then outside the Body. Whether this giving takes place weekly, monthly, or whatever, is up for grabs.
Grace be with you –
Jr