I have been in conversation with some of you regarding my evolving hermeneutic and was asked if I’d write it down and post it… Well, here it goes.
I have, for several years, endured a theological discomfort that can only be described as a hermeneutical conflict. In short, I have been unable to reconcile what I believe ought to be true with my understanding of how to interpret the scriptures.
The conflict boils down to a difficulty reconciling law and grace – or to be more precise: I have had trouble reconciling the reality that Christianity folds me into a system of grace that is fundamentally different from the legal system of the Old Testament. For a half a decade I have reconciled this conflict through the use of the word “jurisdiction.” The concept is simple. As a resident of Michigan, the laws of Michigan have jurisdiction over me, whereas the laws of Iowa do not. Similarly, as a United States citizen I am not bound by the laws of Germany when in the US. Biblically speaking, the jurisdiction approach says that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the OT legal system, it’s just that, as a Christian, it no longer has jurisdiction over me. I am, rather, under the jurisdiction of a different system: Grace.
I continue to hold a jurisdictional approach.
The problem is, although it’s rather easy to explain what it means to be under the jurisdiction of the OT legal system, it’s far more difficult to understand what it means to be under the jurisdiction of grace. When I’m honest, I have to admit I’ve essentially promoted a jurisdictional approach but not developed a clear understanding of what the system of grace is really about and defaulted to the good-old protestant concept legalism. Although I’ve truly believed that we’re not under the OT Legal system, without something to adequately replace it with, I’ve ended up (like most people, I think) creating my own legal system – my own list of rights and wrongs – a list that, when I’m honest, is really nothing more than cherry-picked from the Pentateuch.
I’m in good company with with this semi-grace-based-cherry-picked-legalism. Indeed, I think an argument could be made that the majority of contemporary Christians have done the exact same thing, probably without even understanding what they’re doing. Historically, the church has often cherry-picked the “ethical” laws and purged out the so-called “purity” laws.
The problem with a semi-grace-based-cherry-picked-legalism is that fundamentally it is hypocritical.
Determining right and wrong by lists of dos and don’ts is legalism, whether it’s based on the OT system or something else.
You get the conflict?
The easiest way to get beyond semi-grace-based-cherry-picked-legalism is to say that the jurisdiction of grace means “one cannot earn or loose one’s salvation” so it doesn’t really matter. The problem with that is that while I do believe “one cannot earn or loose one’s salvation” our behavior does fundamentally matter. The scriptures clearly suggest that there are still “rights” and “wrongs” under the system of grace.
Enter the newest evolution in my hermeneutic: Paul.
You might not understand how painful it is to admit this. I don’t like Paul. That fact that he is one of the key writers of the New Testament and one of the most important evangelists and preachers of his time doesn’t change the fact that I think he was pompous and had far too high of an opinion of himself.
So how can Paul be be at the center of my evolving hermeneutic? Well, because I’ve finally begun to understand that everything Paul writes is based on 2 often-misunderstood but incredibly important realties. First, Paul’s various epistles are not intended to create a single, universal corpus of theological thought that can be applied to all places. Paul writes specific things (often different things) to different churches with different problems in different contexts. (If you doubt this, simply look at the various ways Paul deals with women in leadership, circumcision or eating meat potentially sacrificed to idols.) Secondly, the (different) things Paul says to (different) churches are all based on a single question: What is beneficial and constructive.
Hear me well. This doesn’t mean that I believe Paul is less “authoritative” or that the epistles are less “inspired.” It means that I’ve finally come to understand what I believe is Paul’s underlying hermeneutic: The question isn’t “what’s allowed?” but rather “what’s beneficial and constructive?” In short, the basic question of a grace-based system is not “what’s right” or “what’s wrong?” but rather “what’s beneficial?” and “what’s constructive?”
Some of you are saying: duh! 1 Corinthians 10:23….
Yea, I know. I’ve read the passage thousands of times. I’ve even heard people reference it. But only the first half of the phrase. Oh how often I’ve heard people say “everything is permissible” – but seldom have I heard the second half of the clause with it: but not all things are beneficial… not everything is constructive. (NIV)
WOW!
This answers all kinds of questions. Why does Paul say different things to different congregations? Well, it’s obvious isn’t it? He’s not particularly concerned with the question of what is “right” or “wrong” but rather what is “beneficial” and “constructive.”
I hear some of you saying already: but does that mean there aren’t any universal rights or wrongs? Well, yes and no. It means we don’t universally describe right and wrong according to a list of laws. We determine right and wrong according to the question of constructiveness and beneficiality.
Having said that. There are some universals regarding the question of constructiveness and beneficiality. But before I get to them, give me a second to clarify a bit. Constructive and beneficial to whom?
Paul, again: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. (1 Cor. 10:24 NIV)
The question of beneficiality and constructiveness is not simply a matter of personal desire or a decision of individual determination. The questions of beneficiality and constructiveness requires a rich understanding of Paul’s body ecclesiology. Each has a part in the body – an important, necessary and undeniable part. Beneficial and constructive is determined by how it effects the whole body.
Some things are universally not constructive and beneficial to the whole body. These things are universal wrongs (i.e adultery). Some things are universally constructive and beneficial to the whole body. These are universal rights (i.e. love of neighbor, charity). Some things are right in some contexts and wrong in others (i.e. eating meat sacrificed to idols, drinking alcohol, medical prolongation of life).
This means that there is often no difference in the end product (a determination of “rightness” or “wrongness”) between the legal system and the system of grace (list/law-based -vrs- the question of constructiveness and beneficiality). The difference is in the method of determination. The “ends” may be the same (often are) but the “means” are different. God cares about the “means” not just the “ends.”
To be fair, this is a far more difficult hermeneutic than simply following a particularly (and generally accepted) list. But it has the benefit of fundamentally not being hypocritical and alleviates the need to try to reconcile the passages where Paul says one thing to one group and a different thing to a different one.
I hope you find it helpful! Would love to hear you thoughts!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
