“We speak where the Bible speaks. We’re silent where the Bible is silent.” I used to think that was actually in the Bible. It’s a common saying in churches of Christ, though I don’t know that the quote is original with us.

There’s a lot good about that saying, but it’s not as simple and straightforward as it looks. One of the big problems comes with the second part of that affirmation. How do we remain silent where the Bible is silent? (The first part is almost as problematic, but we can talk about that another time.)

Last week I pointed to the normative principle and the regulative principle, two attempts to deal with the silence of the Bible. One says that silence permits. One says that silence allows.

Another view is that silence is silence. It means nothing on its own. It is given meaning by its environment, its surroundings. Silence becomes meaningful when speech is expected. When the sheriff asks, “Who wants to join the posse?”, the silence of the townspeople speaks volume. When the son asks his mom, “Can I go to the party?”, silence can mean a number of things: she didn’t hear him, she’s thinking about the answer, she’s annoyed that he’s even asking the question…

I personally hold to this view. I think it’s a mistake to assign meaning to silence in general. On the one hand, we run the risks of making laws that God Himself did not make. On the other hand, we run the risk of rendering the Bible almost irrelevant, insisting that it speak to matters that were not within its intended scope (that is, applying its silence to things that were not of concern then, like the use of pharmaceuticals).

I do think, however, that it’s important that we focus on the things that the Bible DOES speak about. We can learn much by considering what things were of importance within the teaching of biblical authors… and what weren’t. But it’s a mistake to try to make silence “speak” in any way.