Interpretation and Unity
The
Bible generates tens of thousands of questions it never answers with
explicit and exhaustive instructions or explanation. The people of God
are left to interpret the biblical witness and move in peace in the
direction of the central drift of the faith to the glory of God while
they’re working with texts.
God
tells Israel not to harvest the “edges” of their fields, leave them for
the poor, but he doesn’t say what constitutes an “edge” or who exactly
is to be seen as “poor”. He forbids work on the Sabbath but doesn’t
bother to say what “work” is; he insists parents are to be honoured but
says nothing about what “honoured” means under all circumstances (does
it mean to believe everything they say or do all they tell us to do?).
He forbids covetousness but doesn’t trouble himself to exhaustively
define it. He calls for respect for the aged but who exactly are the “aged”? Peter speaks of modest dress but what constitutes “modesty”? Paul says we’re to obey the government—in everything? He says we’re to forfeit our rights in the presence of the weak—all our rights, and who are the “weak”?
At the Supper Jesus prayed over the bread and prayed again over the wine—must we have two prayers at the Supper because he did? He apparently passed one container and they all drank from it—must
we do that? When and under what circumstances are examples permanently
binding on us? We wrestle with such questions precisely because the
Bible doesn’t answer them for us and if God’s Bible doesn’t settle the
issue beyond dispute maybe we should be modest and confess that we can’t
settle them beyond dispute either.
Maybe
it’s okay to hold different views on a host of things since God via the
Bible refuses to settle a host of things! Maybe our differences on
these matters aren’t worth the time and energy we spend interminably
debating them.
Yes,
but surely we should try to discover the truth on such matters. Indeed,
I’m certain we’re supposed to be “people of the Book” as we seek God’s
face; but maybe there’s no definitive
“truth” about many things. Maybe God allows us—even encourages us—to
“work it out” among ourselves in a spirit that honours him and promotes
peace and a united witness to his work of reconciliation in Jesus. Maybe
some congregations will do “it” this way and others will do “it”
another way.
[You understand I’m not talking here about jugular issues—truths that are manifestly central to the Christian’s faith and response. Even here there’ll be debate about what is jugular
but shelving discussion on that matter for now, the mass of us are sure
some teachings are soul-destroying and others are not. We take that
view on some teachings because we have explicit scripture or scripture
so nearly explicit as doesn't make any difference.]
It’s
clear God’s people can’t stand still while we debate every point of
difference until it's settled unanimously. We might not be able to agree
on everything but there are some things we’re all agreed on and those we are to honour—now! Together!
Differences of viewpoint on non-jugular matters must not be allowed to obliterate or even undermine what we all agree are essentials. Where
strictly non-essential questions are generating unrest and tension
there's a really critical need for an assembly to affirm its unity in
Jesus and draw close together, for the acid test of what they hold are essentials is
whether they can and will by their promotion and protection of peace
and unity bear witness to the reconciling power and purpose of Christ.
It's
important for us to accept (after good-spirited and ample time for
discussion over perhaps months) that there are some things we can't
settle information-wise and so we must settle them at another level. It
would help if a time limit were put on debate after which the
leadership with the congregation’s full involvement decides the
direction the church will go.
We debate some issues ceaselessly because we think they're sufficiently important and because we tend to think that the Bible gives an exhaustive answer to all our questions about how we should carry out this or that. We think if we just keep debating and searching for verses we'll come up with the definitive answer. This is part of our problem! There should come a time when the congregation as a congregation settles on a way to act on a given question even in the absence of a “here's how it must
be done” text or argument; some proposal that the assembly can agree is
at least acceptable. In doing this the assembly shows that it knows
there are some things higher on God's agenda than congregational
agreement on a non-jugular issue (one of those things being peace in
brother/sister-hood). That way we’re free to move on with other matters
we are all agreed on and are of critical importance to our witness to the community for Jesus Christ.
In
such a scenario the major issue (peace and a united witness on the
fundamentals of truth and response to truth) is given its rightful
place—that’s what Jesus died to gain (Ephesians 2:11-end and John 17). A congregation that works like that has risen to a lovely spiritual and Christlike level.
To
visitors, members of an assembly like that might say when a specific
matter is raised: “Well, we couldn’t agree on the details because we
couldn’t find scripture that settled the matter. But we’re all agreed on
the essentials and don’t have the time or inclination to debate all the
time. So we just worked something out that we all know
is acceptable. It’s more peaceful that way, don’t you know, and we’re
left free to get on with other vital and enriching matters.”
There might be something you judge useful here:
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=The+Torah&id=731