A PROVERBIAL CAN OF WORMS

Kenneth Shrable, Ph.D.

adapted from a post to:

RM-BIBLE@BIBLE.ACU.EDU

 In a recent post  -- just before taking an announced week away from RM-BIBLE – one correspondent turned over the proverbial “can of worms” and then seemingly left us with the job of trying to corral the critters.  I do not think we should let our correspondent get off easily.  He seems to have announced that the apostolic church said both a “yes” and a “no” to the matter of praise by means of IM.  I think we should take the opportunity provided by his ‘leaving town’ as an opportunity to provide a warm welcome for his return.  I would like to use his gambit as an excuse to extend the model of scripture application which I have been attempting to explicate.  Perhaps this model is a better ‘can’ for containing all the worms which he has set loose among us than our traditional one.

In an extended series on “Women’s Issue Revisited”, I began an attempt to outline a macro ‘model’ for talking of micro events ranging from instrumental music, the canon of scripture, baptism and the roles of men and women in Christ.  Is there a way to systematically approach such an array of issues?  We typically assert that we refer all questions to the Bible.  When we turn to Scripture, we quickly discover that we do not get a direct answer, or if we find relevant information, it turns out that we get different answers in various places.  In short, it is back to “it depends” on what “counts-as” what in a given time and place, as noted in our series of posts on the “Women’s Issue Revisited.”  In that series of posts, I have offered a simplified ‘model’ for reading and teaching the Bible which I had hoped would be useful to the lay Bible student.  In pursuing this model, we will try to grapple with some of the kinds of analyses of scripture made by the technical scholar today and attempt to open up some of the seemingly closed questions.  I have presented an “intent-correspondence” model as a didactic tool (See Post # 5: Women’s Issue Revisited) which contains three levels of scripture intent and two categories of correspondence in the process of scripture application.  In the prior presentation noted above, we used the instructions in 1 Tm 2:9-15 concerning the expectations for women’s behavior as an illustration of the way this model would handle an application issue at the specific action level by taking note of the instruction in 1 Tm 2:9 for women “not to braid their hair”.   In chart form it is as follows:

INTENT

 Late 20th Century Application

EQUIVALENCE

First Century Text   

(1) Literal    

(2) Functional (dynamic

Level I   

To know Christ    

Ph 3:7-11

X

X

Level II  

Appropriate Behavior

in the house of God

1 Tm 3:14-15

x

x

Level III

Specific Behavioral

Acts.    “Do not

braid the hair”.

No Braided

hair allowed

today

Modest Demeanor

as functional

equivalence today

We have noted that the specific behaviors prescribed or proscribed in scripture at intent level III are under the control of more general instructions at intent level II which refers these very specific actions to the context of the body of believers, i.e., household of God and top the community, namely the impact of our behavior on outsiders.  In all cases our behavior at intent level lll is under the control of intent level l which refers the whole of our life to the Lordship of Christ (Ph. 3:7-11).

In a recent post, our RM correspondent laid out a viewpoint on ‘praise’ as offered by means of vocal music and instrumental music.  I wish to look at this matter in light of our model of intent-correspondence.  In Colossians 3:16-17 we read: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.  And whatever you do, whether in word or deed do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (NIV).  Here we have a series of Level III behaviors, such as singing psalms, singing hymns, singing spiritual songs.  In fact, we have a generalization as to how all of our specific Level III behaviors are to be enacted, namely “whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”  

What is of particular interest in our present post is the fact that when we attempt to insert these specific acts of singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs into our chart under Level III and try to move from Paul's’ instructions in the first century to our late 20th century setting, we are faced with the troubling problem of “correspondence”.  We quickly discover that “literal correspondence” in our behavior with the behavior of the Colossians in mid first century seems very difficult, if not impossible.  As we will demonstrate more fully below, the simple fact is that we do not know the content of the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs employed in the first century worship scene.  We are forced to argue for some form of ‘functional correspondence’ when we reach for the songbook in the back of today’s church pew.  We assume that ‘functionally’ the definition of psalm, hymn and spiritual song in our English hymnbooks must be somewhat equivalent to the meaning of the same in Colossians 3:16-17.  A literal correspondence mode for our singing seems to be an impractical ideal.

If we assume the stance that we are to “replicate” the first century worship scene – at least at the content and action level, then what exactly do we do?  In contrast to the scripturally well defined actions for the Level III behaviors of observing the Lord’s Supper or enacting Baptism, we, in fact, do not know with precision what ‘singing psalms’ involved.  For instance, we are now aware from the Dead Sea Documents that the Psalms, as we know them in our canon, did not include all of the Psalms as known to first century worshippers.  Furthermore, are we to sing any and all Psalms, such as the imprecatory Psalms which call down destruction upon people, or in Churches of Christ, do we use those Psalms that enjoin praise using instrumental music.   In sum, in what fashion does a presentation of praise in our services today  “count-as” singing Psalms.

What is even more uncertain with regard to the problem of arguing for ‘literal correspondence’ between our acts of worship and the practice of the first century church is the matter of singing hymns and spiritual songs.   Just what is meant by hymns and songs?  We do not have possession of the first century church’s  ‘praise’ material referred to as ‘singing hymns’ and ‘spiritual songs’.  By means of critical study, there are portions of the NT scripture that are now argued to be instances of early Christian hymnology, such as Ph 2:6-11, and 1 Tm 3:16.  However, such scholarly probing of the NT yields an extremely limited result and, in many cases, is not clearly definable.  The critical fact here is that we lack accurate knowledge of what the praise service in song consisted of in the NT church. 

We, in other words, lack the information required to ‘bring forward’ in a “literal correspondence” mode this matter of praise through song.  What we actually do in our contemporary worship, probably without awareness on the part of most everyone, is to adopt what we trust is a form of  “functional equivalence” with respect to worship in praising God through singing.  We simply pick up the current hymnal in our pew and  whatever is found therein “counts-as” fulfilling this Level III intent of praise.   Certainly, we are hard pressed to contend that this is an example of  “literal correspondence” between our acts and the actions which took place in the first century, or so I would reason.   To imagine that we are ‘reenacting’ the first century practice in our song service is an example of all of us  ‘agreeing to remain ignorant in the same way’, or so I judge.  I think a more straightforward  and systematic explanation is available to us by dealing forthrightly with the issue of  ‘intent-correspondence’ as illustrated  in our chart above.

 When we reach for our modern song book in the praise service of our worship today, we are behaving as we generally do in the fulfilling of Paul’s instruction in 1 Tm 2:9 to the effect that women should not braid their hair.  With regard to this ‘proscription’, we resort to the “functional equivalence” argument and call for ‘modest demeanor’ in a woman’s hair care “now” and thereby recognize that the technique or skill of braiding hair has returned to its neutral meaning and no longer “counts-as” immodesty, as it did in first century Ephesus “then”.  Likewise, singing from our modern hymnbooks constitutes another example of what “counts-as” what in a given time and place.  It is an example of the issue of what is to be ‘brought-forward’ from the “then” to the “now” in the application of scripture.  To use a modern hymnal is on the same plane as our setting aside ‘foot washing’ as directly commanded and exampled by Jesus (John 13:12-17; 1 Tm 5:10).   This is another example of why it will not do to shrug aside foot washing and greeting one another with a holy kiss (Ro 16:16; 1 Co 16:20; 1 Th 5:26) as trivial issues readily assigned to custom.  The ‘intent’ of such directives are fulfilled today or in the “now”, not by means of  literal correspondence in our behavior with the first century actions “then”, but by means of behaviors that are “functionally equivalent” at the level of meaning.  What we have not generally taught is that our praise service in song is likewise fulfilled in a “dynamic equivalence” mode “now” by using contemporary songs which “count-as” the fulfillment of what is ‘intended’ in Colossians 3:16 “then”.  Our intent-correspondence model provides a systematic rationale for “change” in our application of scripture and for both a “yes” and a “no” to our actions in Christ, sometimes in the same time period but in different historical contexts.  Such a rationale can be systematic and coherent by attending to the ‘intent equation’ (text + culture = meaning).  In fact, to fail to be explicit about such matters is for all of us who are conforming to contemporary practice -- which is in reality quite different from NT practice in the literal correspondence mode  -- to thereby be guilty of  an instance of what I have called an ‘agreement by everyone to remain ignorant in the same way’.  In brief, this is to simply agree to ignore the disparity between what we do ‘now’ from what the NT church did ‘then’.  I feel that this is not a situation which we should choose to continue.  There is a more consistent pattern to follow, or so we are contending.

Now  for the sticky wicket for those of us in contemporary Churches of Christ.  At Level III, we find ‘praise in song’ (Colossians 3:16-17).  Also, at Level III many contemporary worshippers will include ‘praise’ by means of instrumental music as in certain sectors of the Stone-Campbell Reformation or Restoration Movement (example, Christian Church and Disciples of Christ).  However, the critical question is, does this “count-as” praise in the NT church?  This issue has a long and troubled history.  A recent RM correspondent, in a post on ‘Sing and Play’, opened the proverbial ‘can of worms’ by contending for a situation in the NT church whereby we have both a “yes” and a “no” at the same time to this very issue of the use of instrumental music (IM), namely it’s use and non-use in the first century apostolic church depending on whether we are speaking of a ‘yes’ in Jewish apostolic Christianity or a ‘no’ in Gentile apostolic Christianity.  This becomes an excellent case study of our model of what ‘counts-as’ what in a given time and place.  This matter of ‘counts-as’ is the basis for grounding ‘social-facts’, as we have demonstrated in prior posts.

First, for the ‘no’ side of the equation, it is my understanding of the literature that scholars tend to agree on the fact that the Gentile Christian church tended to follow the Jewish Synagogue pattern of worship which did not include the use of  instrumental music.  All of the arguments pro and con about the ‘root meanings’ of  the Greek word  ‘psallo’ simply will not cancel out the argument from ‘use’.   The evidence is very strong that apostolic Gentile Christianity, and its later heirs, were extremely slow to adopt the use of IM historically.  In fact, portions of the dissenting church never accepted this practice.

Nevertheless, our correspondent’s argument for the “yes” side of the equation has force when we look at early apostolic Jewish Christianity in the city of Jerusalem where worship was associated with the use of IM as a standard part of Jewish temple services.  Temple worship involved IM.  I have provided my views on this aspect in a post responding to questions by another correspondent on the topic of ‘Sing and Play’ and I will not repeat in full here. Early Jewish Christianity did continue association with the Temple and it services.  This includes the apostle Paul as evidenced by his actions on his return to Jerusalem at the close of his third mission (Acts 21:17-29).  This historical situation with regard to the beginning of the church does indeed seem to have been an instance where there was a “yes” allowed to praise services with IM in first century Jewish Christianity and a “no” to praise services with IM in first century Gentile Christianity.  Possibly, Jewish Christianity outside the participation in Temple worship would have followed the Synagogue pattern and thereby would not have included IM in the praise service.

I do not think we should allow our correspondent to get by easily with his argument.  He has truly opened a can of worms.  I think we should hold him responsible for helping us corral all those worms.  What he has done is land us squarely in one of the most active areas of NT research today.  This pertains to the “unity-diversity” stream of modern investigation opened up by F.C. Bauer in the middle of the last century and continuing to the present.  Bauer tried to interpret the history of early Christianity, especially as seen in the book of Acts, as exampling the diversity between Petrine and Pauline streams of practice and belief. In current scholarship, his viewpoint is considered too narrow a channel for containing all of  the NT data but his general notion concerning diversity in content and context of NT teaching is still very much alive in contemporary NT research.  What this line of research focuses on is both the ‘developmental nature’ of NT practice and teaching as well as its cultural particularity with regard to whether we are dealing with Jewish or Gentile forms.  Not only are we faced with early Jewish practices of worshipping in the Temple and thereby associating their praise service with IM, but also with the broader matter with regard to engaging in ‘zealously following the law’ (Acts 21:20) on the part of the many thousands of Jews who believed.   This is part of the larger process described by the apostle in 1 Corinthians chapter nine of becoming all things to all people in order to win some to Christ.

Throughout Paul’s life in the church, we seem clearly to have a “yes” and a “no” simultaneously to many major issues of belief.  It should be noted that Paul and the other apostles still considered this as ‘the church’ in both its ‘unity’ and in its ‘diversity’.   The issues of sabbath keeping and circumcision are not handled as requiring either a “yes” or a “no” but rather as permitting both a “yes” and a “no”(Romans 14:5-6; Acts 16:3; Galatians 2:3).  If we follow our correspondent’s line of reasoning, as I understand him, we have this kind of response in the apostolic church to the matter of praise with and without IM.  Obviously, I am aware that IM is a critical identification factor within the Restoration or Reformation known as the Stone-Campbell movement.  For a congregation within the Churches of Christ fellowship to adopt IM is simply to cease to be in fellowship.  Today, IM is considered either “yes” (and out of fellowship) or “no” (and remain within the fellowship).  Our RM correspondent has suggested, or so I understand him, that this was not the case in the first century apostolic church. It would seem that our reading of the historical evidence would conclude that there does seem to be a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ to this issue of IM in worship.  However, this still leaves us with a decision as to what “counts-as” what in the use of IM or it’s non-use.  In our prior post on this topic, we introduced some of the post apostolic discussion which demonstrated that in early Gentile Christianity, IM was rejected because it “counted-as” association with pagan worship.  Later, when some portions of Gentile Christianity adopted IM, they did so selectively by rejecting certain forms of IM as associated with idolatry while certain instruments were associated with the worship forms of the temple and therefore not idolatrous.  This looks more like a question of use or non-use based on what ‘counts-as’ what in worship. 

 This historical explication of the changes of meaning of IM in church history provides further evidence of the use of ‘context’ within culture by the church as a means of assessing the application of the ‘intent’ of NT teaching.  It also turns us back to consideration of the shift in cultural meanings for social constructs or ‘what counts-as-what’ in a given historical context.  As noted above, the resolution of the issue of ‘braided hair’ looks like a kind of paradigm or model of how a ‘neutral skill or technique’ of braiding can shift from a neutral use and take on a ‘negative’ connotation in apostolic Christianity as a symbol of ‘immodesty’ then, after the passage of time and cultural shifts in what ‘counts-as-what’, now, in modern times ‘braided hair’ loses its connotation of ‘immodesty’ and becomes ‘neutral’ once more.  This accounts for our not bringing forward in a literal correspondence mode the injunction to not braid the hair and it likewise accounts for our interest in implementing the ‘intent’ of the original proscription by a call for modest demeanor as the functional equivalence of the original command.  This is our search for a model for determining the application of ancient scripture in the changed cultural context of our world in such a way as to ‘honor the authority of scripture’ by determining its ‘intent’ and thereby applying it’s transcendent principles.  This can sometimes be done in a more ‘literal’ correspondence mode, as in the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, while recognizing the ‘functional equivalence’ modality of scripture application in other areas.  By recognizing the importance of culture in assessing scripture meaning we honor scripture authority.  By rigidly applying only or solely a ‘literal correspondence mode’ we may well be guilty of making scripture hostage to culture, it simply happens to be the Biblical Culture.  In any event, we will need to engage in judicious use of both a ‘literal’ and a ‘functional’ correspondence mode of interpretation and application lest we make ‘culture’, a revelational container, into the content of inspired scripture.  Neither ancient nor modern culture constitutes the ‘revelational content’ of God’s intent for our lives, or so I reason.  We seek to apply the transcendent Word and it’s principles as we seek to know Christ and be conformed to his life and death (Philippians 3:7-11).

I think it is time to allow the ‘stew pot’ to boil a bit.

Grace, in Christ

Kenneth Shrable

<kshrable@qwest.net>