Command, Example, and Necessary Inference

Command, Example, and Necessary Inference (CENI).

More conservative churches, particularly in the Churches of Christ teach and use this lens of interpretation to decide what WE are supposed to do in worship today. They don't just apply this to a worship assembly, but also to matters like baptism and every day living. In other words, people who use CENI, use it to establish the rules for every day living and worship. CENI is also particularly useful in debates, which I believe caused its existence.

A Command is any direct order given to the churches or to followers of Christ.

An Example is anything that we see the church DO in the New Testament, usually after Pentecost.

Necessary Inference refers to any occasion where it seems necessary to assume that they did a certain thing or allowed a certain thing to maintain consistency or order.

Anything in addition to these things is an innovation and is rebellion. If it is done and not authorized by CENI, it is a sin. If it is NOT done and IS authorized by CENI, it is a sin. At least people think this way.

In some places, CENI seems to work well. In Acts 2, Peter COMMANDS them all to be baptized. Later in the chapter, 3000 people do just that. We should follow their EXAMPLE. It also seems NECESSARY to INFER to that they would do this in a large body of water and that they dipped completely under the water to symbolize burial like in Romans 6. The Bible is in harmony and we are in harmony with it.

First, I will say that CENI could be used in a good way for elementary school students. It boils scripture down to a set of clear rules, which children need to start developing good behaviors. At the same time, it is important to teach children to read the Bible for more than just rules. BUT If this is to be our hermeneutic, we will never come to the scriptures looking for anything but rules to list and follow. This may be putting the chicken before the egg, but we are already tempted to reduce Christianity down to a rigid set of rules to follow and categories to put things in thanks to the enlightenment. We have no tolerance ambiguity and nuance, so we take that and apply it to the scriptures. If we apply CENI consistently, we will find that we are equally guilty of picking and choosing what Commands and Examples we want to follow. We may even find that we do some things that aren't authorized by CENI.

We do not apply CENI consistently

My biggest issue with CENI is that those who use it do not even apply it consistently. The scriptures are littered with Commands and Examples that, for some reason or another, we've decided don't apply to us.

Command

1 Corinthians 11

"[...] Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, the she should cut her hair short [...] let her cover hear head [...]"

Women are given a direct command to cover their heads, but this isn't something that we teach at all. For some reason or another, we have decided that this command doesn't apply to us (and I would agree), but if we are to use CENI as our hermeneutic, we are already starting to say, "this hermeneutic works all the time for everyone, well, except..."  Fill in the blank with whatever will keep you from having to do what CENI would lead you to do.

What about the command to wash feet? Jesus just got through washing the disciples' feet, then...

John 13:14ff

"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."

There you have the Example of our Lord Jesus, the Command of Jesus Christ, and I have never seen Christians washing one another's feet. Perhaps it was just cultural, or symbolic in meaning, or a metaphor for humility. Doesn't matter. You said if it is commanded or given as an example, you should be doing it. This is both, and it is pretty direct. Jesus even SAYS that because he commanded it and gave example, we should follow it. If you're looking to proof-text, there you go! But you have to wash feet. This is far from the cultural norm today, maybe because we are proud, or maybe because our feet really don't get too dirty, and if they did, we wouldn't want our guests stinking up our houses by taking of their shoes and socks! But Christianity isn't the cultural norm, so let's get out our linens and wash buckets!

Bonus commands:

Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with a holy kiss"

Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye offends you, pluck it out."

This seems facetious, and perhaps I am being a bit facetious, but I'm making a point. 

Example

I've already brought up Acts. Reading on from where we were in vs 38 and following, we get to vs 42.

"[...]They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship and to the breaking of bread and the prayers [...] they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all and day by day attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes [...]"

"The (specific) prayers"? what prayers? My inference muscles kick in here and assume that there were some specific prayers that they prayed, but does the church have any specific prayers that we will say together? Do we devote ourselves to this, or are we too afraid that we might be saying some "vain repetitions"?

What about selling our possessions? Honestly, I've never known a single Christian to sell their possessions in order to give to the church, and the first century church did this ALL THE TIME. We have the rich young ruler who was commanded to sell his possessions, we have this passage, and we have Acts 5 where more Christians were doing it and one couple got killed for being dishonest about it. The first century church did it, and they did it pretty consistently.

"Breaking Bread" is something that the church did together DAILY. Is this the Lord's Supper that they are talking about? It is the same verbage here as in Acts 20:7, so I can only assume that they took the Lord's Supper every day or both examples are non-binding and refer to just any meal! Do you think that THEY didn't have other things to do? Do you think that being "too busy" is only a 21st century problem? They did it. Why don't we?

What about where they met? They didn't have a church building, so many met in homes. In Jerusalem, they also went to the Temple DAILY, in fact Acts 3 opens up with Peter and John going to the temple at the hour of prayer. Again, to stretch my inference muscles, they might have even done some things that were bound by the "Old Law" since they were worshiping with Jews.

Some people who subscribe to CENI would simply say that this is not a "binding" example. My response would be that what decides whether an example is binding? This is clearly done by the church, approved and sanctioned by the apostles, and recorded for us so that we might follow their example. What else should be a requirement for a "binding example".

Necessary Inference

Necessary Inference really has no leg to stand on because who decides what kinds of inferences can or should be made? This part of CENI could really just be labeled "Opinion". In every application I have seen, It is either an attempt to control and bring the church into more rigidity or an over-arching principle used to justify laxity in following commands and examples. It is binding where the scriptures have not or losing where the scriptures have not.

CENI makes us read our Bibles incorrectly

When you are reading the Bible ONLY to try to find out a list of dos and do nots, you will miss that the scriptures are trying to teach you in PRINCIPLE over law. Jesus taught in principle.

For example, Christ told his followers to love their neighbors and told the story of the good Samaritan. Galatians 5:14 tells us that if you love your neighbor, you fulfill the entire law. If you love your neighbor, the rest of the law flows. If you love your neighbor, you will not steal from them, you will not commit adultery with their wife, you will not lie to them, you will give to them if they have need, and you will treat them well. Jesus didn't want his followers constantly worried about every dot and title of the law (although they were to follow the law). If we followed his principles we would have the law written on our hearts and be able to follow the spirit of the law. In Romans 7 (read it), Paul calls the old law of "do this don't do that" the "law of sin and death" and speaks of a new "law of the spirit". We should strive to write the law of God on our hearts in principle by reading the letter and changing our behavior.

CENI teaches us that rules in the Bible were for everyone, 100 percent of the time. Rules in the Bible were not always consistently applied to everyone all the time. Rules that were set up by the apostles applied, except for when they didn't. They didn't always apply to everyone in every church. One example of this is found in 1 Corinthians 7:18 "was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision." In Acts 15, Peter accuses the Jews of trying to put a yoke on the Gentiles that not even they could bear! Alright Paul and Peter! You unequivocally have forbidden circumcision of Gentiles. We won't do it. Acts 16 "Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places." WHAT?! Yep! Another example has already been covered, Paul commanded the Corinthian women to wear head coverings, so you must accept one of two positions (false dichotomy alert); either rules apply to 100 percent of people 100 percent of the time, or they don't. If they apply to everyone always, then your women should wear head coverings. If not, then we can conclude that it was probably just a cultural thing. 

CENI is an unreasonable standard

In a blog I read here <http://oneinjesus.info/2013/12/ceni-is-ceni-a-hermeneutic/>, the writer uses the example of sending his wife to the grocery store. This is the same example that supporters of CENI like to bring up. 

So, I sent my wife to the grocery store and asked her to bring some Dr. Peppers home. Well, wouldn't you know that rebellious woman had the GALL to bring home Dr. Peppers AND bananas! Aggghhh! I didn't command bananas! I didn't give her an example that when we get Dr. Pepper we get bananas! There is no way to Infer that if I am drinking Dr. Pepper I better have some bananas to go with it! So, I divorced her for being rebellious. 

Here's the point. People don't draw expectations in daily life based on CENI. It doesn't work that way. A relationship that requires total adherence is totally graceless and unloving. We know that the bananas were bought because my wife loves me, and knows I would enjoy a banana for breakfast the next morning. God isn't a god who lurks, waiting for you to make a mistake so that he can damn you to hell. That's Satan's job. I hope most of you readers agree that this would not be a loving relationship between a husband and wife, yet some of you still believe that Christ would treat his bride this way. 

CENI leads us to make lists. We are to follow the 7 steps of salvation, do the 5 acts of worship, make sure we don't accidentally doom someone to hell because a hair was above water at baptism, avoid the sins we find, worry that we might commit one or be wrong on one point,  Go to church every time the doors are open (citation for midweek Bible study necessary). You can see how we have turned Christianity into a very spiritless, robotic, routine practice instead of a spirit-filled walk with God. We've turned God into a tyrant who WANTS to damn us to hell. It causes us to ignore passages like James 1 and 2 and reduce worship to only 5 acts. It is a tool invented for debate and not daily Bible study. Because it was a tool developed out of debate, it causes Christians to back themselves into a corner where they must not do X because this X would violate the principle they set up when debating Y. It ignores nuance in the scriptures and causes us to bind where scripture has not. To top it all of, it is only applied if it supports our currently-held beliefs and practices. 

What would I replace it with?

This is a common question anyone gets when they don't like something whether it is Obamacare or a simple hermeneutic. Sometimes the answer is "nothing". I cannot come up with any mould in which to cram the scriptures that would not do them some injustice. CENI teaches nothing about the nature of God or the history of his people. One system would teach us nothing of the life of Christ. Another would tell us nothing about the history of God's people. Another would do nothing to help promote righteous living. One graceless, one spiritless, one clueless, and another loveless. Any way that we try to categorize and dissect scriptures will fall short. I don't mean that you shouldn't study different hermeneutics. I mean that any man-made system is flawed in some way. It is important to recognize that and allow for some ambiguity every once in a while. So how do I read the Bible? I look at what the scripture is trying to tell us, not at what THING we are already doing that I can dig out of this text. I try to take off my cultural blinders so that I can see a scripture in its historical and cultural context instead of a 21st century mindset. Simply, I don't sit down with pen and paper and write down every time I find something I agree with. Just read the Bible. Study it. Don't have an agenda other than learning more. You'll find you don't need CENI. 

I hope I've done this topic justice and you've enjoyed reading. I also hope that you will respond whether you agree or not. An open and honest dialogue is always appreciated as long as it is done in a Christian attitude. Thanks for reading.