An Assessment of the Hermenutical in The Church of Christ¹
Part II
The Scholarship Movement
Gary D. Collier
Pasadena, California

A recent series of articles in the Restoration Quarterly² has made it clear that within the churches of Christ in the decades following World War II, a school of thought began to arise which would challenge the conclusions of the Old Rationalist/Inductive School. During this period of time a movement grew from a resurgence³ of interest in worldwide scholarship as prompted by the beginning of the graduate programs in Bible at Pepperdine, Harding, and Abilene, and the number of graduates that went on to doctrinal studies from those programs. This movement would express itself in print in a number of ways, and would set forth an unswerving commitment to the “historical method”⁴interpretation. It would not, however (with few exceptions), interact directly with advocates of the Rationalist/Inductive School.

THE RESTORATION QUARTERLY

Founded in 1957, Restoration Quarterly became the primary mouthpiece on the new movement. James Thompson has observed that the purpose of the journal was “to provide a forum for scholars who were active in research, many of whom were completing doctrinal dissertations at the time.⁵ However, many of the articles were aimed also at preachers, to provide them with a resource for better understanding the Bible.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD
An important concern of those who have written in the journal has been to espouse and practice the historical method of interpretation. In its first issue, there were two articles on the subject of interpretation. Paul Southern’s “Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Restoration Movement” and J.W. Roberts “Exegetical Helps” was the first of many installments under the title providing insightful philological contributions to the scholar and preacher alike. Subsequently, numerous articles appeared on exegesis and exegetical method, Biblical backgrounds, the early church, the Restoration movement and other related subjects.

Particularly important for the interpretive process were the numerous contributions of J.W. Roberts (already mentioned); the astute and challenging contributions by Abraham Malherbe, including (among others) “The Task and Method of Exegesis,” two articles under the rubric “Through the Eye of a Needle” (reflecting his conviction that “philology is the eye of the needle through which every theological camel must enter the heaven of theology”), and “Surveying New Testament Research.” Also, important were the detailed articles by Frank Pack on textual criticism, and the many articles of Everett Ferguson and Jack Lewis on church history, Biblical background, and other studies. These are but a few of those who wrote in the early issues.

When the whole of Restoration Quarterly is considered to the present day, entire issues have been devoted to explaining and demonstrating the method and task of Biblical interpretation (1961), and Scholarship (1965), Old Testament scholarship (1966), and Scholarship in the Restoration Movement (1982). Other issues have also been devoted to a single topic, and although not concerned with exegetical method per se, are nevertheless living demonstrations of the “new” method and approach to Scripture. These are wholly given over to Biblical books:
Book of Acts (1960)
Book of John (1963)
Book of Genesis (11980)

or to other topics of interest in the Restoration Movement which directly or indirectly relates to Biblical hermeneutics:
Baptism (1957)
The Church (1958)
Apologetics (1962)
2^nd Century Christianity (1968)
English Translations (1974)
Personalities in the Restoration Movement (1977)
But of all of the articles in Restoration Quarterly, none is more important than the three critiques of the rationalist/inductive method put forward by two authors.

CRITIQUE OF THE
RATIONALIST/INDUCTIVE APPROACH

In the first article, “The Restoration Principle: A critical Analysis,” Roy Bowen Ward offers a poignant analysis of the Restoration Principle in which he underscores the importance of recognizing that Christianity is a historical religion, and that the Bible, as we have it is dependent on the historical processes. Th show this, he asks whether the early restoration leaders began the movement:

“Because they found the Restoration Principle in the NT or because they were reacting to a certain historical situation, viz., disunity among those who called themselves Christians?”⁶

Ward says that historical documents suggest the latter. He also notes that the NT nowhere provides an “explicit scriptural basis for the Restoration Principle.” Nevertheless, Christianity, as a historical religion, “must look back since a religion of history is founded on past events.” As such, “the criterion for religious truth must be in that past event,” ⁷but not only in the event itself, but the interpretation or understanding of that event within history.⁸ In the final analysis, the plea “back to the Bible” (rather than back to the event) depends on the historical process of canonization in the in the 2^nd century and following centuries.⁹

Ward notes that his understanding of Christianity, as a historical religion, has major impact on traditional Restoration exegesis (what the text meant), and especially on Restoration Hermeneutics (what the text means).¹⁰ He suggests that:
“ the results of the 19^th century exegesis have in some cases been superseded in the present time because ‘principles of interpretation’ have been more greatly [sic] refined and because new data has become available.”¹¹

Furthermore, according to Ward, the currently accepted hermenutical rules are represented in J.D. Thomas’s We Be Brethren ((commands, examples, and necessary inferences), are categories that:
“are not set forth as a hermeneutic within the text of the NT, but rather they are derived from a certain logical system outside the text. The question should rather be raised whether or not this logical system is consonant with the NT itself, and the presupposition of this hermeneutic
should be discovered and clarified.”¹²

Ward suggests that a better approach is to understand NT theology and then to apply the theological insight to the current situations. This would involve at least thee steps (1) understanding “the life, thought, and practices of the apostolic churches” (2) “finding the central and motivating forces of those congregations and restoring these to the present congregations “(3 recognizing also “the importance of rites and institutions reflected in the canon of scripture (Believer’s baptism, “not simply because some text commands it, but because only believer’s baptism is consonant with the general theological understanding of the apostolic congregations).¹³
The next two articles are by Thomas Olbricht and will be discussed together. They are, “The Bible as Revelation” (1965) and “The Rationalism of the Restoration” (1968).¹⁴
Olbricht’s major contributions in these articles include (1) his seminal major discussions on the philosophical background of Alexander Campbell and his peers; (2) his evaluation of the 19^th century inductive method employed by Campbell and his followers, especially as it showed itself in Campbell’s view of the Bible as primarily composed of a collection of historical facts; (3) his evaluation of Restoration views of Revelation in light of the larger 19^th and 20^th century debate of world-wide scholarship; and (4) his emphasis on Biblical theology as the central point from which current-day hermeneutical relevance of Scripture is to be worked out.
In “The Bible as Revelation” (1965), Olbricht’s statements have exceptional force and clarity as powerful rebuttals of the Rationalist/Inductive School:

“The manner in which we collect all the pertinent passages of Scripture on a given subject in order that we may induce a conclusion betrays the presuppositions from which we operate.
The positivistic tradition is also obvious in our hermeneutic
principle of commands, examples, and inferences. This principle
is operable only if, as we have assumed, the Bible is a collection
of particulars in the same manner that individual trees comprise
a forest. The one point at which we may have retreated from
the Campbell-Lamar view is that we have been inclined to treat
the Bible more as a book of constitutional law (propositions) than
as a book of historical facts.”¹⁵

“In my opinion Campbell got us headed in the wrong direction. I agree with him in looking at the Bible in a positivistic manner, but I think he was wrong in seeing it as a collection of facts the unity of which emerges from the individual facts themselves. What he should have done is to raise the question of what are the
great themes of the Scriptures of God’s love shown in His deeds of sin and salvation and then interpreted the individual facts in that light....In spite of expressed fears of those who wish too maintain our traditional hermeneutics I insist that if we took seriously what I have proposed we would be more Biblical than ever
before. We would not do away with examples and commands, but we would have a manner of looking at them provided by the unity of the Bible itself.”¹⁶
Three years later (1968) in his article, “The Rationalism of the Restoration” , Olbricht raised two objections to Campbell’s approach to Scripture: (1) the Lockean approach to Scripture was the wrong approach to adopt, because viewing the Bible as a collection of facts leads to atomistic interpretation; and (2) “the effort to separate reason and facts from emotion” when coming to faith in Christ is wrong.¹⁷
All three articles by Ward and Olbricht deal straightforwardly with the issues involved between the Rationalist/Inductive School and the Scholarship Movement. However, these articles are the exception rather than the rule, even in the Restoration Quarterly. Rarely is the hermeneutical issue discussed as forcefully and directly.¹⁸ What is more, the three articles discussed above are only preliminary studies as far as “what the text means” is concerned, and deserve a followup.

There can be little question but that Restoration Quarterly has been the primary mouthpiece of the Scholarship Movement in which a major thrust has been to establish an approach to the Bible more in concert with the historical nature of the Bible itself. As a whole the effort has been very successful and has rightly sought to approach the Bible with renewed vigor from a 20^th century context.

Nevertheless, in its desire to regain its intellectual roots, the Scholarship movement has not always attended well to the “rest of the tree.” It has sometimes stated its conclusions in ways that are not perceivably relevant to its audience;¹⁹ has sometimes conveyed a message that it does not want to convey (viz., that it is not concerned with traditional Restoration hermeneutical heritage); has not fully conveyed the message it needs to convey, especially with regard to the relationship of the “historical method” to older methods; and does not deal adequately with the question of hermeneutical appropriation. These points can be illustrated especially in two other major literary products of the movement: (1) the Living Word Commentaries and (2) the festschrift for Jack P. Lewis on Biblical Interpretation.

THE LIVING WORD COMMENTARIES

How well have the hermeneutical concerns of the Scholarship Movement been relayed to the congregations? The major hermeneutical effort to date is the Living Word Commentary project, ²⁰ an exegetical commentary series based on the historical method for, in the words of John Willis, “the average church member, and not for other Biblical Scholars.”²¹ Certainly, this project was vitally needed and in may ways has been successful in achieving its goals.

But in the introductory volumes of both the OT and the NT series, the articles on “How to study the NT” by Roy Bowen Ward (published 1967) and “Rewarding Bible Study” by John T. Willis (published 1979) suffer, in my opinion, from two major problems:

First, neither article clearly addresses the major hermeneutical context of mid 20^th century readers who come from a Restoration background. It is perhaps one of the ironies of the Scholarship moment, which rightly places so much emphasis on historical “context” when interpreting Scripture, that it has not spoken clearly to the hermeneutical tradition of its own audience! It isn’t that the articles are unintelligible. Willis’s in fact is quite good. Both fall short in what they do not address. There is no question that both articles have in mind, just out of view, a faulty methodology (viz., the rationalist/inductive method) which they wish to correct to a better, more productive perspective. But that faulty approach is never clearly addressed.

This is not to second guess what Ward and Willis should have done. Perhaps it was deemed wise, from an editorial standpoint, to avoid direct challenge so as not to fan the flames of undesirable controversy.²² Nevertheless, what has resulted from this apparent policy of not directly dealing with the divergent viewpoints is that readers of the commentary have little idea or no idea that anything different is being offered—unless they know it already. With that in mind, it is entirely proper for us to ask the following question: given what we have, what do we need to do now?

What is needed is to have the proposed “historical method” set in unmistakable dialogue with the method used for nearly a century in the Restoration Movement, and with which so many “average church members” are familiar. Although the initial reasons for not dealing directly with the issue may be understandable, it is becoming increasingly counter-productive to continue such a policy. Speaking strictly from a contemporary standpoint, it is unthinkable that a commentary series—of the Restoration Movement no less—that challenges at such a basic level the traditional method of interpretation, should not let its readers in on its reasons for postulating a wholly different approach than most have grown accustomed to. As the two articles stand, however, most readers may not be aware of any challenge at all, and no real change in hermeneutical practice will result.

The second problem is that neither article clearly addresses the issue of “what the text means today.” There is no question that emphasis has rightly been placed on the distinction between “exegesis” what the text meant then, and “appropriation”—what it means now”²³, and that careful , historical exegesis must come before appropriation. That does not justify, however, ignoring appropriation in favor of exegesis. This may be an old issue, but it deserves a great deal more attention.

Both articles deal inadequately with the primary issue of how we get from “what the text meant” to what it means.” Ward discusses translations, the meaning of words, and literary types and forms, and then concludes with this statement:

“It is beyond the scope of this volume to attempt to lay down rules
for applying the NT to our own day. But it may be that the more
we understand what is meant, the clearer will be the meaning for
today.”

I agree with this statement, but unless one already has some experience with the historical approach, the statement is meaningless. This comes close to telling the reader that what the text means for today is really not very important, or that it is self evident. If this issue is not “in the scope” an essay dealing with proper method of Bible study, where does it belong?²⁴

Willis (twelve years later) corrects this deficiency to some degree, giving a very readable and practical description of proper Bible study in its historical and linguistic context. Under the heading “Customs and Abiding Truth”²⁵, he mentions that although “no certain solution has been found for deciding whether a given Biblical command is binding for all time, two observations should be kept in mind: (1) what is essential is the meaning and motives of acts, not just doing the acts correctly; and (2) a belief, teaching, or practice does not have to originate in Israel or Christianity to be central to them.

These are useful points as far as they go. But as with Ward’s article, unless one has a grasp of the “historical method”, the discussion is too brief to be helpful. The problem with this is that the full impact of the reasons for the historical approach will go right past those who most need to be reached. It does not help them to challenge them at the most important level: namely, their understanding of the nature of the Scriptures and how they are to read and apply them.

FESTSCHRIFT FOR JACK LEWIS

Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice, Studies in Honor of Jack P. Lewis²⁶ was published in 1986, and contains 25 articles (almost exclusively on Biblical exegesis) and two bibliographies. According to the back cover, the book is intended for “those who preach, teach, and study the Bible.”—a rather broad spectrum. Many excellent articles in the tradition of Restoration Quarterly are included from well prepared and capable writers.

Nevertheless, it is disappointing that the volume does very little to advance the understanding of interpretive methodology within the context of the Restoration Movement. There is no forward to give the reader the editors’ goals and desires for the book, nor their particular attitude toward the interpretive methodology which underlies most of the articles (viz., the historical method). As with the Living Word Commentary introductory essays, this volume is to be criticized not so much for what it has, but what it does not have.

However, there are four articles in particular that need comment. Ian Fair’s article on ‘Disciplines Related to Biblical Interpretation” (pp. 31-49) devotes one page (p. 48) to four principles of “hermeneutics” (appropriation). Unfortunately, they are too general to be helpful, and they are somewhat vague. After exegeting a given text,

1. The theologian suggests a hypothesis as to its normative or incidental value.
2. The theologian evaluates the hypothesis against the overall theological context of Scripture.
3. The theologian makes a statement as to whether the text under review is normative or incidental.
4. The preacher searches for contemporary analogies.

How one is to decide whether a given text is normative or incidental is not clearly delineated. What is one to look for when comparing the hypothesis “against the overall theological context.”

Ian’s discussion is missing one page and was when I received the article so I will have to move on.

P. 16—But our author concludes,
None of this is disturbing. What is disturbing, however, is that one can leave this book believing that it all fits together. There is no dialogue at all between the competing points of view of the older Rationalist/Inductive School and the more recent Scholarship movement. And we all lose because of it.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The question of hermeneutical appropriation—bringing to life in our context what once enlivened another context–lies at the heart of our ability to survive and thrive as a people. At present, there is an impasse and a growing confusion on many issues relating to our Christian faith and practice. I believe, from trying to pour new wine into old wine skins (the old wine skins in this case is the 19^th century hermeneutical model). And those wine skins are already burst.

Numerous studies on both a popular and more technical level have begun to appear in the last few years²⁷is beginning to be restudied, there is some (perhaps expected) confusion as a new hypotheses are put forward, sometimes based on positions not entirely thought-out.²⁸ At this point, a sense of perspective and direction is needed.

This study has attempted to provide some perspective. It has argued that two dominant and fundamentally different hermeneutical theories are represented in what can be called the Rationalist/Inductive School and the Scholarship Movement. That hermeneutical difference directly impacts the life and character of the church. As long as th two schools co-exit without significant interchange of thought, an impasse will exist at a fundamental level.

See Part One which I do not have

See the special issue on Restoration Scholarship in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4 (1982), especially the studies by Everett Ferguson, Tony Ash, and James Thompson. See also Ash’s earlier thorough studies on OT scholarship in Restoration Quarterly 9-10 (1966-67)

Note W. E. Garrison’s remarks in Religion Follows the Frontier (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931), p. 258: “The first generation leaders had included a few men who had wide intellectual concepts. The second generation had fewer. And as the Disciples multiplied colleges, manned chiefly by their ministry so far as they were trained at all, a process of intellectual inbreeding ensued which resulted in an unfortunate isolation from the main currents of religious thought and scholarship.” Quoted in Tony Ash, “Old Testament Studies in Restoration Movement—No. IV,” Restoration Quarterly 10 no 3 (1967) : 158.

So described by Abraham Malherbe, “Introduction” in The Word of the New Testament, vol. 1 of the Living Word Commentary

( R. B. Sweet Pub. Co. 1967) p. 3

Roy B. Ward, “The Restoration Principle: A Critical Analysis” Restoration Quarterly 4 (1964): 198

Ward, “The Restoration Principle” p. 200

Ward, “The Restoration Principle” p. 201

Ward, “The Restoration Principe” pp. 204-208.
“Nevertheless, it remains a historical fact that we call a certain 27 writings “Bible” because the sub-apostolic church them “Bible.” The validity of the motto “Back to the Bible” rest in part on canonization activity.” (p.208)

Ward uses the term “hermeneutics” in its narrow sense to refer to “what the text means” rather than to the exegetical process itself.

p. Ward, “The Restoration Principle” pp. 208-209 (his emphasis)

Ward, “The Restoration Principle” p. 209

Thomas Olbricht, “The Bible as Revelation,”Restoration Quarterly, 8(1965): 211-230; “The Rationalism of the Restoration” 11 no 2 (1968) : 77-88. See also his very important article “Biblical Theology in the Restoration Movement” , Mission Journal, 13 (1980) :4-9. In the authors opinion, the article “The Bible as Revelation” (1965) is one of the most important articles ever published on Restoration hermenutical methodology, and is as appropriate now as when it was first published.

Olbricht, “Revelation” p. 213

Olbricht, “Revelation” p. 229

Olbricht, “Rationalism” p. 87

Although he does not go materially past the contributions of Ward and Olbricht, another important article is Russ Dudrey’s “Restoration Hermeneutics Among the Churches of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” , Restoration Quarterly 30 no 1 (1988): 1742. (This article was published after the completion of the present study.) Dudrey argues that we must “read the Bible first as Historians, then as missionaries, then as theologians.” (p. 40) The NT writings “are not abstract treatises of systematic theology written in the quiet confines of study.” They are rather “missionary correspondence[s]” written “from on the field and in the trenches.” (p. 41) To read them properly, we must think more like missionaries than scholastics.

“..those of scholarly interests whether in congregations or the schools.” Thomas Olbricht “The Twentieth Year” Restoration Quarterly 20(1977):129. This is, I think, at least part of the reason Restoration Quarterly found it necessary to reformat and redefine itself in 1975. James Thompson, “New Testament Studies and the Restoration Movement” in Restoration Quarterly 25 no 4 (1982): 223-232. stated the problem another way with slightly different connotations, when he pointed to “the insufficient cohesion of Restoration scholars was publishing elsewhere, probably with less interest in the original intentions of the journal.”

Started by R. B. Sweet Publishing Co.; now in the hands of ACU Press. To date, the entire NT has been published, and six volumes of the OT have appeared.

John T. Willis, “Rewarding Bible Study” in The World and Literature of the Old Testament, vol. 1 of The Living Word Commentary (OT) (Austin: R.B. Sweet Co., 1979).

Such controversies were already taking place in other forms (e.g., Mission Journal).

Some call this “hermeneutics” E.g., see Malherbe and McGaughey in Restoration Quarterly 5 no 4 (1961): 170, 252; and Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982). I prefer to use “hermeneutics” in its broader , classical sense of referring to the entire interpretive process.

See the very negative review of Wards article by George Howard Restoration Quarterly 11 no 2 (1968): 116-117

Willis, “Rewarding Bible Study” p. 35.

I am somewhat reluctant to comment on this book since it was intended to honor one who was and continues to be my teacher, and who influenced me tremendously. But, I will proceed nonetheless, knowing that he would expect me to do so.

On a popular level: the Pepperdine lectureship has provided extended classes on the topic and are available on tape: Mike Armour (1986), Kregg Hood (1987), Frank Pack (1987), and Paul McReynolds (1987). See also, among many others, Steve Ink, “Another Look at Hermeneutics” Image (Feb-March 1987); and Norman Bales, “Resolving Tensions Between the Spirit and the Letter” see the group of papers at the 1984 Christian Scholars Conference, available through Pepperdine University, particularly: Carroll Osburn “From Exegesis to Theology as a Theologian”; Lynn Mitchell, “From Exegesis to Theology as a Exegete”; James Thompson, “From Exegesis to Theology as a Sermon”; and Rubel Shelly, “Can a Restorationist do Theology?” and the responses to each of these papers. Numerous others are listed in the Christian Scholars Conference Papers Index (vols 1-7, 1981-1987) also available through Pepperdine University.

This is not to criticize the efforts, though I wonder about the forums sometimes chosen for the efforts. Two examples from Pepperdine Lectureships will illustrate. In 1986, Mike Armor, ‘interpreting the Word”, suggest a reevaluation of four concepts: the constitutional nature of the NT, the silence of the Scriptures, the NT use of the OT, and inspiration. In the process, (1) he asks too many questions for the particular audience he was addressing for which he does not have answers or even suggestions. And (2) he goes the wrong way on the subject of the NT use of the OT, even though again he mainly asks questions. The issue of proper hermeneutics does not turn around 1^st century or even NT hermeneutical methodology. We will do better to look at Christ’s hermeneutical attitude. On the other hand, in 1987 Kregg Hood “Scriptural or Unscriptural: How can I know?” argued that the Bible “authorizes that which is consistent with Biblical principles.” The effort, then, is to derive Biblical principles by way of inductive reasoning. To achieve this he offered as a new interpretive model a fully developed four level hermeneutical pyramid consisting of (from the top down): examples, commands, other Biblical material (culture, backgrounds, etc), and Biblical Principles. While Hood makes some good points, his approach nevertheless has several major flaws, the chief being that it is just one more external system placed over a text whereby the supreme ruler ends up being, not Biblical theology, but inductive reasoning. (I understand he has since altered his approach somewhat).