When Is An Example BINDING? Never.

This excerpt was taken from a much more detailed 2-part article that may be found here.

I do not categorically agree with everything said below, but I believe what is written moves us closer to the truth and would contribute to unity among churches of Christ.

I have included in this excerpt only what I hope will spark consideration and discussion. 

The author lists opposing arguments in great detail in the full articles.

He writes,

"Bible examples without a doubt are meant to teach and instruct us in what God finds acceptable and unacceptable.  Whether or not examples can teach us is not the question. The question is, "Are we required to imitate examples that the Scriptures show have God's approval?" Most in the Churches of Christ would answer yes."

"If we answer yes, then we must have a way of telling which Bible examples are essential and which were just incidental or else we have no means of knowing which examples God expects us to imitate. If we cannot tell the difference, then we must either imitate every New Testament account of action, or concede that we aren't required by God to follow any of them."

"In discussing the matter with other brethren, no one that I am aware of has produced a logical means by which the difference between significant and insignificant examples can be ascertained. If no objective means of distinction can be identified, then we must either bind all examples or none of them." 

"Indeed, we have been very inconsistent in the binding of examples. There are a number of examples that would seem to have God's approval yet we do not bind them upon ourselves. Consider the following "approved" examples which we don't imitate."

• Eating the Lord's Supper on a Thursday (the day Jesus instituted it).
• Baptizing outdoors. The only passage under the new covenant which records where a baptism took place says that it was outdoors (Acts 8:36-39).
• Eating the Lord's Supper only in the evening. The only passage that mentions the time of day that the Supper was eaten says that it was in the evening. By definition the word "supper" means an evening meal.  (Mt 26:20)
• Restrict the number of deacons in local congregations to 7.  (Acts 6:3)
• Setting aside the ninth hour as an hour of prayer. (Acts 3:1)
• Observing the feast of Pentecost as Paul did.  (Acts 18:21, 20:16)
• Daily assemblies.  (Acts 2:46)

"Why do we not bind these examples? How have we been able to logically conclude that they are insignificant and not worth binding?"

 

A MORE CONSISTENT APPROACH 

"If an objective method for determining when an example is binding and when it is just incidental existed, wouldn't we already know about it? If such a method existed, it would stand to reason that our forefathers in the Restoration Movement would have recognized it long ago and it would have been handed down to us. Instead, all we have are subjective methods (guidelines, common sense, etc.) for making the determination. When subjective methods are used, division is the inevitable result."

"God is fully capable of expressing Himself.  He did so in painstaking detail in the Old Testament when specifying the intricacies of temple worship, priestly duties, instructions regarding sacrifices, etc.  God was still capable of clearly expressing Himself when the New Testament was written. When God desired to bind things in the New Testament, we have no doubt about it.  For example, we know that fornication, theft and drunkenness is wrong.  We know that He requires faith, repentance, confession and immersion in order for a person to become a disciple of Christ."

"God clearly expressed Himself on these matters. Had He desired that we strictly imitate the historical demonstrations of obedience that we read about in the New Testament, God would have made it plain that we should do so. Lacking clear direction from God on the matter of binding examples, and lacking a reliable means of separating important examples from unimportant ones, we are forced to conclude that New Testament examples are not binding.  This is not to say that New Testament examples have no value. Like examples from the Old Testament, we can learn about eternal principles and attitudes that God finds pleasing or displeasing and adjust our actions and attitudes accordingly."

"When one recognizes these facts and realizes that New Testament examples apparently were not meant to be bound, all of these "hard knots" simply unravel.  Many of the issues that have divided brethren for the last 100+ years are the result of binding examples. When we stop binding examples, issues such as the following are no longer relevant nor divisive."

• How the church treasury may (or may not) be spent
• How churches may (or may not) cooperate
• If we may have multiple Bible classes when we meet
• Located (full-time local) preachers
• Day of week, time of day and frequency of the Lord's Supper
• Number of communion cups
• Number of loaves used during communion

"These are not things that God has bound but has left them up to our best judgement. Consistency and logic shout out to us to stop binding examples. When we drop this man made requirement, we'll be a step closer to the unity that God desires amongst his children and be in a better position to understand Biblical concepts that are truly significant."

In part two of this article which may be found here, the author concludes: 

"The Achilles heel of those who engage in "pattern theology" (i.e. the binding of examples) is that they assume approved examples require imitation.  This must be proven!"

"We all approach the Bible with certain preconceived ideas and I think all of us at one time or another have attempted to find proof for what we already believe. J. I. Packer eloquently expresses this thought:"

We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world.…It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has moulded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be “catholic” tradition, or “critical” tradition, or “ecumenical” tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures.

"We must always strive to look to the Bible with an open mind and be willing to go wherever the truth leads us.  Sometimes that journey is painful, but for those who value truth over tradition it is a journey we must take."

--creedrehearsal.com