How do we go from text to life? This question about the theory and practices of our faith is not only relevant and practical, it is also difficult and controversial. The role of women in the assembly, the nature of public worship, the working of the Holy Spirit, the validity of divorce and remarriage, the extent of Christian fellowship, the authority of elders and preachers: these are but a few of the difficult questions which continue to engage us—and divide us. They are matters of intense, practical concern for us, and at the base of them all is the question of proper biblical hermeneutics.

But the matter of hermeneutics itself is a subject of growing concern. It is increasingly being pointed out, for example, that our traditional Restoration hermeneutical theory is defective and needs to be reexamined. ² But it will be argued here that in fact (1) there are two competing hermeneutical schools of thought within the Churches of Christ, both which have problems, and which more often than not coexist in a strange mixture and with strained results; and that (2) there has been relatively little dialogue between the two schools of thought, which contribute to the problem. As a result, the discussion of hermeneutical “appropriation”³ is short-circuited to the point that it almost totally falls from view. In other words, it will be argued that as a movement we have been more text centered than relating-the-text-to-life centered: and we have set it up this way.

In what follows, the two schools of thought are identified by their dominant interest. The Rationalist/Inductive School refers to that philosophy of interpretation which hails especially from the 19^th century; which attempts to reconstruct the original pattern of the nature and organization of the “ideal” New Testament church through what can best be called “thorough-going inductivism” (i.e., through detailed and slavish attention to inductive reasoning and stated in propositional statements); whose specific method of establishing biblical authority is through specific commands or precepts, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences; and which respects the silence of the Scriptures in the various “articles of faith.

Those in the Scholarship movement see themselves as returning to the original interests of Campbell in scholarship and the historical nature of the Bible.

It should be pointed out here that these two schools of thought are not totally mutually-exclusive. Certainty those in the Scholarship Movement will use inductive and deductive reasoning to one degree or the other (as all interpreters will)⁴, and some of those in the Rationalist/Inductive School will emphasize scholarship to one degree or another.⁵ But, there is nevertheless a significant difference in the amount of emphasis placed on these various approaches by the two schools of thought, and it is to that emphasis that I refer when I make these distinctions. This article will examine and evaluate some of the major tenets of the Rationalist/Inductive School as they were developed from the early 1800's to the mid 1970's. A subsequent article will examine the development of the Scholarship Moment and how proponents have interacted with the Rationalist/Inductive School. The conclusions drawn from this study will hopefully be relevant to the whole question of biblical hermeneutical theory in a Restoration context.

When J.D. Thomas wrote in 1959 that the traditional three-fold means of establishing biblical authority (by direct command, necessary inference, and approved apostolic example) has “in general been accepted by all of us since the beginning of the Restoration period of church history, ⁶he underscored just how entrenched that particular approach had become by the mid-20th century. His full statement is quite to the point and bears repeating:

There is little question that the hermeneutical approach as outlined indeed became the system of choice within the Churches of Christ fairly-early on in the movement. It is not quite accurate, however, to say that it has been so accepted from the beginning of the movement. In point of fact, it came into favor amid heated controversy in the mid-to-late 19^th century and crystallized in its present form in the early 20^th century in the Rationalist/Inductive School. The most important single literary production of the School was the Gospel Advocate commentary series on the NT, and the most significant formulation of the hermeneutical method was published by J.D. Thomas. What follows is a review of this development and an evaluation.

The most significant study on the origin and triumph of the “necessary inference” in the Restoration movement is Michael W. Casey’s 1986 doctrinal dissertation.⁸ Casey shows that prior to 1830, both Thomas and Alexander Campbell strongly rejected (on philosophical grounds⁹) the validity of inference for establishing biblical authority. But they began to change their position after 1830— gradually at first, then rapidly— because of practical (not theological)considerations being faced in the movement. And the whole process took place amid a heated controversy.

A key factor in this development was the establishment of Bethany College (the summer of 1841), whose faculty included A. Campbell, Robert Richardson, W.K. Pendleton and Robert Milliagan. By using the rhetorical and logical theory of Richard Whatley, the “Bethany Circle”¹⁰in the late 1840's and 1850's was able to rehabilitate deductive logic without undermining the basic presuppositions of the inductive method, thus establishing a theoretical basis for necessary inference in an inductive framework.¹¹ In this way inductive and deductive approaches were wedded in a non mutually-exclusive manner and necessary inference gained both a philosophical and rhetorical justification for existence in the context of a thorough-going interest in the inductive method.¹²

The result was that by 1870 two camps had emerged and had become quite polarized (the conservatives, including David Lipscomb, Tolbert Fanning, and Ben Franklin) who flatly rejected the validity of necessary inference and who held tenaciously to Campbell’s earlier position against the binding nature of inferences: and the moderates (especially Isaac Errett) who strongly advocated the validity of necessary inference and who followed Campbell into using inferences to justify the development of church practices not specifically mentioned in Scripture.

Undoubtedly, a number of factors are important for the change in position, not the least of which would be the rise of modern biblical criticism in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, and the felt-need of the conservatives to combat its destructive tendencies.¹⁴ The result was a crystallization of hermeneutical thought and a virtual isolation from biblical scholarship on the broad scale. ¹⁵The influence of Moses Lard, J. W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb, G. C. Brewer, and other can hardly be underestimated. The thorough-going inductive approach to Scripture was further refined and constantly emphasized, and the predominant view became the three-fold command, example, and necessary inference. G. C. Brewer’s 1949 statement can be cited as typical:

The most important single literary production of the Rationalist/Inductive School has been the Gospel Advocate commentary series on the NT. David Lipscomb was the driving force behind there series, having made personal notes on the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles. Unable to bring the project to completion because of failing health, he enlisted J. W. Shepherd who in turn enlisted others : H. Leo Boles, John T. Hinds, and C. E. W. Dorris.¹⁷ The first volume , Romans, was published in 1933. During the next nine years, nine more volumes were published covering each of the Gospels, Acts, each of the Pauline Epistles, and Revelation. Lipscomb’s personal notes and his relevant material previously published in the Gospel Advocate were included in brackets throughout each of the volumes except Luke, Acts, and Revelation. With the exception of the reprinting of Milligan’s commentary on Hebrews in 1971, all remaining volumes were written by Guy N. Woods between 1953 and 1981.

Several comments are in order with reference to the hermeneutical methodology of this series.¹⁸

(1) There is an inconsistency in the attitude of the commentators toward scholarship per se. Depending on the polemical need of the commentator, scholars are viewed either as authorities or as false teachers. J. W. Shepherd, for example explained why the commentaries were based on the American Standard Version:

“It is recognized as the best by men who are entitled to speak with authority—by leaders of the foremost universities, colleges , theological seminaries, and Bible training schools.”¹⁹

But this statement sounds strange when put beside Guy Woods’ later statement. Woods noted that his commentary on James had been prepared for average students on the Scriptures who have limited time and who sincerely want to know what is in James, but who:

“are not acquainted with, or interested in, the denominational theologians of the age; and who would not be edified, but merely bewildered, by an array of their various and false opinions.”²⁰

In the final outcome, it is not surprising to find that very little interaction with broader scholarship takes place.

(2) There is an inconsistency at a fundamental level between commentator’s hermeneutical theory and their hermeneutical practice. Although the commentary series contains no separate essay on hermeneutical procedure (thus it is never spelled out specifically in any detail), the methodology is none the less stated now and then. Theoretically, the “context” is to play a determinative role in explaining the meaning of a given text. Lipscomb, for example commented that “the context of a Scripture is the only safe guide in determining what that Scripture means.”²¹ As a result, context is mentioned throughout. Attention is given in every commentary not only to a phrase-by-phrase explanation, but also to matters of authorship, date, place, occasion, etc.

But despite the theory, there are many texts which are traditionally important to those within the Restoration Movement where there is little or no attempt to relate phrases to their context; rather they are often discussed as separate units which may be transported readily to other portions of Scripture to serve as commentary, or to support long held interpretations that have been passed around orally or in print. [This is the year 2008, and this method is still in the Church of Christ to the dismay of many and particularly distressing to me] as though the words of the texts inherently contain unmistakable meanings that are clear to everyone whether the context is known or not.

The result is that for all practical purposes, the context carries no interpretive value whatever. The controlling interest turns out, instead to be the following question: “What does the Bible require of us?” Thus, the three-fold method of command, example and necessary inference becomes the dominant hermeneutical principle, often to neglect the context. And the relationship between the two approaches is never discussed. A few examples will illustrate the point.

(A) Guy N. Woods, in his commentary on James, points to the phrase “But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath”, and says that since the verb “let....be” (esto) is imperative “James thus commands each of those to whom he wrote” to obey the saying.²² But in fact, neither the imperative mood in and of itself²³ nor the context calls for such a statement. If this logic were correct, it should also be said that James commands his readers to “count it all joy” (1:2), to “let steadfastness have its full effect” (1:4), and to “ask God in faith” (1:5-6). In that case, he also commands the rich and poor to “boast in” their respective exaltation and humiliation (1: 9-10), commands that one is “not to say he is tempted by God” (1:13), and commands the readers “not to be deceived” (1:16). This of course does not pay adequate attention to the context of the passage, but is arguing on the basis of a preconceived hermeneutical position. The only reason one would regard the phrase “let everyone be “ as a command is if such commands were being look for based on the question, “What does the Bible require of us?” It surely does not come from the context.

(B) H. Leo Boles followed the same procedure when explaining the phrase “the first day of the week” in Acts 20:7. He referred to 1^st Cor. 16:1-2 to show that meeting on the first day of the week was a “well established custom” among Christians, and that “this custom is now a command, or rather, there is a command for this collection to be taken on the first day of the week.”²⁴ J.W. Shepherd refers to the same passages (along with Hebrews 10:25 and Acts 2:42) and comments that the first day of the week “is the only regular service for which there is precept or example in the New Testament.²⁵ The question is never asked whether these texts were intending to give either precept or example in the sense these authors assume, and there is little effort to discuss the overall significance of the phrase in its own context. Again, this results from a prior question brought to the text, though it is never stated forthrightly: “What are we commanded to do?”

C. Precisely the same point can be made about the commentators on the so-called “divorce texts” in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10: 1-12; and Luke 16:18. Again, the central (though unstated) question that each of the commentators addresses is not “what is each of the texts saying in its own context” but rather the more general “what does the Bible require of us?” As a result, the “canon within a canon” on this question of marriage, divorce, and remarriage becomes Matt. 19:1-12—all other texts are interpreted in light of a particular interpretation rather than their own contexts.

C. E. W. Dorris, for example, does not deal at all with the form of the saying of Jesus as it appears in Mark 10:11, but adds the “exception clause” from Matt. 19:9:

“And he said to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife,— except for fornication.’ (Matt.19:9)— and marries another commits adultery against her.

He then discusses guilty and innocent parties and who is free to remarry, as though this were inherent in what Jesus had said, and as though such is apparent to all who look “objectively” at the text. Boles follows the same course in Luke 16:18, though he does have an interesting comment that , “The connection of this verse with what precedes or what follows is obscure.”²⁶ Aside from that, however, Matt. 5 and 19 are used to explain Luke 16:18. Boles discusses Matt. 5 itself primarily through Matt. 19, and a quote is included from Lipscomb which summarizes the whole debate:

“The language of Jesus on the subject of adultery and divorce is plain. I see nothing difficult to understand in it; I cannot write a plainer sentence than [Jesus spoke in Matt.5:31-32] ...Every man and every woman that has separated from a husband or wife save for the cause of fornication, and is living with another, is living in adultery. The law is positive and clear: and no reasoning of man, whether preacher or not, can change it. I do not see what more can be said on the point.”²⁷

The phrase “necessary inference” is not used specifically, but that is clearly the intent. “Committeth adultery” is interpreted to mean “living in adultery.” And such a view is regard as “positive and clear.” When commenting on Matthew 19 itself, Boles makes a similar but even stronger statement when he says that anyone in such a marriage:

“Is under the curse of God and is in sin son long as he or she remains in the connection. (1^st Cor. 5:5). All the legislatures, teachings of men, and infidel presses in the world cannot remove the curse; they only number themselves among those who deny the word of God and call evil good and good evil. Jesus here teaches no new laws; he simply declares what has always been the law of God. Unlawful intercourse with any other person permits the innocent party to break the marriage tie; the guilty party has deserted forever the marriage partner; and has become unfit for further association; the guilty party can never again enter a pure and lawful marriage.”²⁸

In all of this, the individual texts are never viewed in their literary contexts, but are mashed together (along with interpretations and traditions) to form one pointed doctrine, which is then used to interpret each of the texts individually. Again, the question which is asked of the text is not, “What does this text mean in its own context?” Rather, the question addressed is “What does the Bible command on marriage, divorce, and remarriage?” And once asked in this way, the answer quite naturally conforms to the nature of the question.

D. A final example is Shepherd’s comment on the phrase “singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). Instead of discussing the impact of this phrase on its own context, or vice versa, Shepherd’s entire concern was more contemporary: what constitutes acceptable singing?²⁹The cue for this question comes from the phrase “with your heart” (as opposed to anything other than your heart, viz., instrumental music.) But is the point of this text to establish the means of acceptable music? This question is never addressed.³⁰ Because of Shepherd’s concern, he ends up drawing the following conclusion:

“No performance of an instrument can possibly grow out of the word of God in the heart: a mechanical instrument cannot speak that word either to praise God or to teach and admonish one another. The sound of the instrument drowns the words sung and hinders the teaching and admonition. The use of the instrument hinders and destroys the essential purpose of the worship in song. It works an entire change in the song service; it sooner or later changes it from a service of praise to God into musical and artistic entertainment that pleases and cultivates the fleshly and sensual nature. A more hurtful change could not be made in worship than this change in its spirit and purpose. If it were a sin to change the appointments of God in the patriarchal and Jewish dispensations, which were sealed by the typical blood of animals, much more is it a sin to change the ordinances and appointments of the Christian dispensation, sealed by the Son of God (Heb. 10:28, 29). “

Again, Shepherd does not call his conclusion a “necessary inference,” but that it has this force for him can hardly be missed. His conclusion is quite pointed: to use instruments in the worship is a sin. There is little doubt that this is a question of contemporary significance, but Shepherd never asked why or how the phrase was significant for its own context, or what its function was in its own context.

In summary, what all of this says in effect, is that in the Gospel Advocate commentaries (at least on some matters of long standing debate and concern), the criterion of understanding a text within its own context is not a “doctrine” of hermeneutical practice to be taken seriously. In the final analysis, neither the immediate nor larger contexts have anything but passing significance for understanding the “clear” statements of Scripture. The Central question is not “what did a text mean in its own context?” Rather the question of greatest concern is, “What does the Bible command us to do?” Context may or may not be useful or interesting in the discussion, but the primary hermeneutical principle is to discover commands, examples, and necessary inferences which are the different parts of Scripture.

The clearest restatement of the rationalist/inductive position in the 20^th century is found in J.D. Thomas’s two books on the subject. In his first book, We Be Brethren (1958), Thomas dealt with the question of when and how examples teach, and he refined the previously developed methodology in two major ways: First, he developed the “Standard Diagram of Authority,”which graphically shows the hierarchical relationship between what he calls, “generic and specific patterns, excluded specifics, optional expedients.”³¹ Secondly, he developed the “Pattern Principle”, which states that a binding example must contain “the logical implication of a command.”³² The upshot of the book is to argue that at least some biblical examples inherently establish pattern authority³³.

In his second book, Heaven’s Window (1974), Thomas did not so much refine the methodology any further as restate the traditional position in light of his first book. Here he dealt with the underlying philosophical tenants of the rationalist/inductive method. When considered together, the two books constitute the most detailed 20^th century statement on the rationalist/inductive hermeneutical method per se available. For the sake of clarity, the major arguments will be set out numerically, and any evaluation will be saved for the final section.

(1) The philosophical need for an authoritative Word from God to man: “It is unthinkable, “Thomas says, “that man could have free will without ...some kind of guidance and instruction about what is expected of him.”³⁴ That of course, is the Bible, which “consists of a propositional message, sent from God’s mind to man’s mind...’The revelation is “clear cut, definite and objective so that there is no vagueness or misunderstanding whatever.”³⁵

(2) Pattern authority of the Bible: Since Scripture is God’s Word to man, the concept of “pattern authority” becomes vital. Thomas says:

“By the term “pattern authority, “ we mean that the revelation message conveys to man’s mind a ‘blueprint’ fashion exactly what God wishes man to know and do and be. In the same way that a blueprint is a constant reference to a builder and reads the same to everyone who has the ability to interpret blueprints, the pattern concept of Biblical revelation means that [the Bible] is a continuing spiritual reference to all logically-capable truth-seekers; it will read the same to all of them and with it one can learn exactly what God wishes him to know." Thomas. Heaven’s Window, p. 4

(3) The Bible as facts and propositional statements: In classic rationalist/inductive tradition, Thomas presents the Bible as primarily consisting of facts, which by the “Inductive-Deductive Method”³⁶ can be synthesized to arrive at general teachings from Scripture:

“ For example, if the question is “What is the mode of Christian Baptism?” all the facts (passages) can be considered, then, seeking to know the truth on the subject, the mind will seek an hypothesis which “squares” with all passages that mention baptism. Immersion will leap into the mind, and when checked against all the facts will be found to be the only ‘mode’ of baptism that agrees with all of them. Nowhere does the Bible flatly state that ‘immersion is the only mode of Christian baptism,’ but the inference, which produced the hypothesis of immersion only, makes it possible for us to know that biblical truth on the matter. Thomas, Heaven’s Window, p. 89, all quotation marks, parentheses, and italics are his.

(4) The inductive method as represented by Dungan: Thomas gives chapter 12 entirely to a summary of D.R. Dungan’s Hermeneutics, which he regards as a:

“Classic in its field to those who follow the grammatico-historical method and who seek ultimately to arrive at the common mind in Biblical interpretation.”Thomas, Heaven’s Window, p. 86

Two phrases are important here. The first is "the common mind" which harks back to Thomas Campbell's philosophical under-pinnings, and which according to Thomas:

"means simply that normal men will come to agreement if they sincerely and reasonably and thoroughly examine all the facts that can logically affect a given problem.³⁷"

The second phrase is "grammatico-historical method," which for Thomas is identical to what Dungan calls the inductive method:

"Actually, they are the same thing...So whether one calls it the scientific method, the grammatico-historical method, the inductive method, the point is that each is striving to arrive at the common mind through the same methodology used by the others."³⁸

In these two phrases, then Thomas argues for a methodological approach and philosophical basis that derived from the early leaders of the Restoration Movement.

(5) The importance of the three-fold interpretive method: Command, Example, Necessary Inference: According to Thomas, the Bible not only contains patterns, but is itself a pattern from God.³⁹ For that reason, the means of discovering "pattern authority" is vitally important for all Christians at all times, and is to be discovered inductively. To quote:

"The sum total of all this is that 'commands establish patterns without question'; but so do necessary inferences, when the conclusion is absolute and is necessary; yet when examples are known th have underlying commands (by necessary inference) they also will establish patterns, but only then!...In the final analysis, therefore, commands, necessary inference, and 'binding examples' are all one and the same thing--as far as the force of logic is concerned."⁴⁰

(6) The grammatico-historical method: In this respect again, Thomas stands squarely in the tradition of the Rationalist/Inductive School, emphasizing the importance of the historical background, the original setting of a given biblical book or letter, the author , and so on, when studying the Bible. Like Campbell's seven rules published in the Christian System (1835) for reading the Bible like any other book, and his larger Christianity Restored (1835), and especially like the six basic rules in Dungan's Hermeneutics (1888), Thomas also emphasizes reading and evaluating the Bible in its historical context.⁴¹

In summary, the Rationalist/Inductive School originated in the early emphases of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and with the conservative wing of the Disciples in the latter part of the 19th century. The school has emphasized a thorough-going inductivism and the grammatico-historical approach to studying the Bible, based on its view of the Bible as containing (in propositional statements) the pattern requirements of God, to be recovered through commands, examples, and necessary inferences. J.D. Thomas has offered the most recent and complete re-statement of the approach.

By way of evaluation, there are a number of major flaws, only two of which are mentioned here, the first very briefly, and the second in some detail.

First, the Rationalist/Inductive School hold us to a 19th century philosophical and methodological base without any serious dialogue with more recent hermeneutical theory. It is as though no advances in hermeneutical theory have occurred. This position cannot be successfully defended.⁴²

Secondly, the Rationalist/Inductive School has increasingly exhibited a schizophrenic attitude on two fronts: (a) its specific hermeneutic theory per se, and (b) its attitude towards the life situations of people. This disjunction exists despite both good intentions and specific statements to the contrary. As the saying goes, the test of the pudding is tasted, it clearly is missing some of the ingredients that are claimed to be in the recipe.

(a) In its specific hermeneutic theory per se, the Rationalist/Inductive School has consistently advocated the grammatico-historical study of the Bible, but has increasingly and uncritically practiced atomistic interpretation (proof-texting). In theory, the grammatico-historical method has been stated quite strongly from Campbell to Thomas. As has been noted, however, Campbell followed the principles more consistently early in his life than he did later, or than many of his successors, since interest turned more and more toward the atomistic style of interpretation in the interest of firming up established positions and recovering biblical patterns.⁴³ By the time of David Lipscomb⁴⁴ and his student G.W. Brewer⁴⁵, proof texting was the dominant practice.

In spite of this, the emphasis on the grammatico-historical method is as pronounced as ever. Thomas, for example, in Heaven's Window (1974), makes a strong claim that the "grammatico-historical exegete" will examine all of the important data: the language, the historical circumstances, the purpose, and the context.⁴⁶ But when he examines the "New Testament Claims" in chapter 10, he (unintentionally) gives a classic example of proof-texting. He cites Rom. 6:17; 2nd Tim. 1:13; and Heb. 8:5 (along with a number of references to Arndt and Gingrich and Theological Dictionary of the New Testament for the meaning f the words, typos, hypotyposis, and hypodeigma--"pattern or standard") and then notes:

"We have established unexceptionably the fact that the New Testament does claim pattern authority for its words and its teaching."⁴⁷

In point of fact, however, none of the passages cited has anything to do with the New Testament claiming pattern authority "for itself." Thomas simply misused two Greek tools to support a position he had been arguing for nine chapters without the support of any biblical texts.

This type of interpretation happens too often in the rationalist/inductive approach. In spite of claims to the contrary, the stated interests in authorship, date, biblical context, and the like turn out to be token interest which affect the overall outcome very little, if any at all: the emphasis on the grammatico-historical method has often turned out to be little more than lip service. As a result, the question is never asked by the Rationalist/Inductive School whether its approach is consistent with Scripture, and is never brought under the critical scrutiny of Scripture.

(b) But the most far-reaching and devastating flaw of the Rationalist/Inductive School is its schizophrenic attitude towards the life situations of people. In theory, they well-being of people is a the heart of the method, but in practice, quite another matter has controlling interest.

For example, J.D. Thomas (to his credit) wanted to put forward a hermeneutical clarification that would "alleviate the tensions between BRETHERN and would thus permit us to get on with our main business of saving the world."⁴⁸ His underlying motivation for the salvation of sinners and unity among brothers in a brotherhood that was (as is) becoming sharply divided over a number of issues is clear. And when he says, "our purpose is to produce faith in Christ, not faith in a certain doctrine about the Bible; the Scriptures are the means to an end, not the goal itself",⁴⁹ his focus is on Christ and not the Bible per se. And again, when he makes the following statement, it is clear that , theoretically at least, he is not concerned with a de-humanized approach to Scripture and the Christian Faith:

"We are not saying that Christianity is a hocus-pocus system where one gets a magical reward for just having the right passwords. Neither is it a mechanical ritualism that gives merit for going through the correct motions, while penalizing those who go through the wrong motions with an eternity in hell. Rather Christianity is something big---it is spiritual and is concerned with the whole man and with the whole of truth. It is an attitude of heart and life that issues in character and godlikeness."⁵⁰

But here is precisely the problem. How do these statements square with the pattern principle and with the concept of obedience to the pattern requirements of God (as discovered through commands, examples, and necessary inferences) as these are worked out and emphasized by the school? This question is never specifically addressed,⁵¹except in the most general terms. Thomas, for example (in the same paragraph of the statement just quoted), pits subjectivity in Christianity (including sincerity and good intentions) against "real factual truth," and concludes that Christianity must be in a "right relation to propositional statements that are true, as versus false."⁵²

This quote appears in chapter 10 which attempts to justify the "pattern" concept (as defined by Thomas)⁵³as scriptural, and in a section titled "Correctness in Doctrine. " As worded, Thomas is not arguing against all subjectivity per se, but is primarily advocating the primacy of objective truth. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that if subjectivity has any value, it is minimal, for "the streets of hell are paved with good intentions," subjectivity can in no wise bring the results that real factual truth can bring."⁵⁴

In this way it becomes clear that there is a battle going on between the objective and the subjective, and that the subjective has no independent merit. For, the initial definition of Christianity (defined theoretically by Thomas in the subjective terms of faith, character, godlikeness, and an attitude of heart and life---all of which certainly are biblical concepts) is actually complete only when it is understood in the brighter light of the objective "right relation to propositional statements that are true, as versus false,"---otherwise it is not Christianity at all, but mere subjectivity.

"We are not saying that patterns are rigid---when God requires something, he requires it. This is not to say that grace cannot forgive a wrong once done---but it is to say that its is wrong, because a requirement of God has been violated---and the person will remain a sinner unless grace and forgiveness are invoked through the proper pattern requirements that bring forgiveness." ⁵⁵

Thomas is certainly justified in emphasizing the "wrongness" of sin. But to make grace and forgiveness subject to "proper pattern requirements" is frightening. Proper pattern requirements do not bring forgiveness! So the primary objective, which starts out as "faith in Christ" in the final analysis turns out to mean getting in a "right" relation to propositional statements," and being able to tap into " the proper pattern requirements."

But how can one ever know whether he/she is in that right relationship, and thus a Christian? How can one truly discern God's requirement and His pattern? This is why Thomas wrote his book, to make it possible to know by defining more clearly how to determine when an example has pattern authority and thus "changes itself into a command."⁵⁶ In the final analysis, one's faith and life in Christ turns own his or her ability to distinguish between "optional expedients" and "excluded specifics." Of course it is not stated this way and I don't think this is the intention---but it nevertheless works out this way.

This of course is absurd---the approach is simply untenable. It is a system imposed from outside the Bible to extract from the Bible specific items already generally presupposed as being the the Bible---viz. , the blueprint/pattern requirements of God.⁵⁷

So, the greatest failure of the Rationalist/Inductive School is this: it has not bridged the gap between its practice of focusing on the objective pattern requirements of the absolute perfect will of God and its theoretical proclamation of Christianity as a faith "written on the heart." In reality, the concern for determining pattern authority through command, example, and necessary inference is the dominant and decisive concept in the hermeneutical superstructure, through which every other principle is defined or explained.

But when all of the theoretical statements and good intentions of the Rationalist/Inductive School are brushed aside and the "cold" hard "facts" of reality (as produced by the Rationalist/Inductive School) are looked at, here is what we have: we have a Bible that does not related to people where they live (mired in sin) but only requires of them rigid attention to commands, examples, and necessary inferences to decipher God's pattern requirements---in spite of theoretical statements to the contrary; and we have congregations that are dying because they have forgotten the meaning of Jesus' statement, " I desire mercy and not sacrifice," or at least they have not figured out how such a statement can fit into the Rationalist/Inductive approach as it exists.

As a final comment, I hasten to point out that this assessment in no way impugns the motives of any of the commentators. Indeed, the motives which underlie the Rationalist/Inductive School unquestionably derive from an intense desire for purity before the Lord in all matters essential before Him, and such motives can hardly be called into question. Whether or not the hermeneutical method adopted by the school actually promotes that purity, however, is very much open to discussion. because in retrospect, the method under discussion has resulted in the proliferation of many mini-theologies which often contradict broader theological issues in Scripture. That is to say, it simply produces bad, imbalanced theology.

The travesty is, bad theology hurts people! Bad theology not only undermines our ability to understand the intention of God's laws for our lives, it also eventually becomes a yoke around the necks of the very people it was intended to serve. And for that, Jesus condemned the Pharisees, despite their motives.

An earlier draft of this paper was presented to the Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University, July 1987. It has been substantially revised and expanded based on discussions which followed its initial reading. I extend my appreciation to hose who gave critical evaluations of the earlier paper.

For example, Russ Dudrey has recently argued that the divisive tendencies within the Restoration movement have been caused by a faulty hermeneutical theory. See “Restorationist Hermeneutics Among the Churches of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” Restoration Quarterly 30 no 1 (1988) : 17-42. See also Woody Woodrow, “The Silence of Scripture and the Restoration Movement” Restoration Quarterly 28 no 1 (1985/86): 25-39.

By “appropriation” I mean how we bring the text to bear on our real-life concerns and predicaments; how the text is theologically ingested. In this paper, I use hermeneutics and hermeneutical theory in their broad sense to refer to the entire interpretive enterprise.

The question is not whether people think in inductive and deductive categories, but specific use to which t hose categories are put by the Rationalist/Inductive School in the command, example, necessary inference model. Note for example, the statement of E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation p. 89: “The correct determination of implications is a crucial element in the task of discriminating a valid from an invalid interpretation. Although disagreements between interpreters are sometimes total, . . . more often their disagreements center on details of implication...The principle by which we can discover whether an implication belongs to a meaning turns out to be the concept if intrinsic genre.” Despite the generally similar sounding nature between Hirsch’s quote and the Rationalist/Inductive School, Hirsch outlines a completely different approach.

J.D. Thomas, for example, one of the chief proponents of the Rationalist/Inductive School received his PhD degree in New Testament and Early Christian Literature from the University of Chicago in 1957, and served as president of the Corporation Board of the Restoration Quarterly.

Michael w. Casey, “The Development on Necessary Inference in the Hermeneutics of the Disciples of Christ/Churches of Christ/Christian Church/First Christian Church” (PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1986). I am heavily indebted to Casey’s work and in this section I am to a large degree summarizing his conclusions. In addition to his work, the last decade or so has seen a number of studies on the history of interpretive methodology within the Restoration Movement. To give two examples, Charles w. Zenor’s 1976 Th.D. dissertation entitled, “A History of Interpretation in the Church of Christ: 1901-1976" (Iliff School of Theology) examined the interpretive similarities between David Lipscomb, G.C. Brewer, and J.D. Thomas. More recently, in 1983, Robert Woodrow’s ACU MA thesis entitled “The Nature of Biblical Authority and the Restoration Movement” , not only traced the philosophical influences on Thomas and Alexander Campbell, but also identified seven fundamental emphases about the authority of Scripture in eleven authors, including Alexander Campbell, Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Errett, J. S. Lamar, J.W. McGarvey, David Lipscomb, D.R. Dungan, James H. Garrison, G.C. Brewer, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and J.D. Thomas.

Casey (“Development” pp. 60-64) underscores that the rejection of inferences was based most directly on a wholesale adaptation of the Baconian inductive method. Classic Aristotelean syllogistic logic (from which “necessary inference” was mainly derived and on which much then-current theological discussion depended ) was deemed outmoded and nothing more than “a venerable piece of antiquity”. On that basis the Campbells’ originally (prior to 1830) regarded necessary inference as important only to show human reason, but it could never be considered binding. The new “inductive method “ was regarded as the deathblow to the other way of reasoning.

Casey, “Development” p. 385. Whately’s Elements of Logic (1826) and Elements of Rhetoric. Casey points out that, “The intellectual model foe this shift was the same theory that the Old School Presbyterians used to bolster their theological program in response to the New School Theology.” (P. 125)

This point of view was then worked out in detail by both faculty and students of Bethany College in major works on hermeneutics: Moses Lard’s Review of Campbellism Examined (1857) , J.S. Lamar’s The Organon of Scripture (1860), Robert Milligan’s Reason and Revelation (1867) and later, D.R. Dungan’s Hermeneutics (1888).

Apparently Moses Lard and J.W. McGarvey became the conduits into the conservative wing for the acceptance on necessary inference: “A few conservatives who were trained under Campbell at Bethany (Moses Lard and J.W. McGarvey) recognized that while inference could be used to justify “innovations” it also could strengthen the arguments on many on the conservative sectarian positions. They began to implement necessary inference to argue for sectarian causes, a practice that more and more conservatives were to take up.” (Casey, “Development” p. 370).

See the excellent reviews on this period for OT scholarship by Tony Ash, “Old Testament Studies in the Restoration Movement” (four parts) in Restoration Quarterly 9-10 (1966-67); and for New Testament scholarship, James Thompson, “New Testament Studies and the Restoration Movement” in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4 (1982): 223-32.

Both Tony Ash and James Thompson (see previous footnote) note that while there were few exceptions, the broader arena of worldwide scholarship was ignored. Notable exceptions include McGarvey’s The Authorship of Deuteronomy and Milligan’s Hebrews.

C. E. W. Dorris wrote in the preface of the commentary on Mark (1937): “In my research of the writings of the scholarship of the other churches in connection with my work on this volume, I have been convinced David Lipscomb had a keener and deeper insight to the meaning of the holy Scriptures and of God’s dealings with the race than any other man in all Christendom.” Mark, (1937), p. iii; see also J. W. Shepherd’s comments in Romans. ( 1933), p. iii-iv.

The following assessment is a mere probe into an area that deserves a great deal more attention. A detailed comparative study of the interpretive methodology among the various commentators of the Gospel Advocate commentaries would be useful as well as interesting.

The imperative in the New Testament is by no means confined to commands, but also expresses a request or a concession.” F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R.W. Funk, Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p 195.