How We Read the Bible: Assumptions
Wes McAdams and his Radically Christian podcast seems to enjoy a good reputation in Texas (although sound brethren can’t help wondering why. He has championed the “heaven on earth” theory, indicated that the use of instrumental music in worship is not necessarily sinful, and now on Valentine’s Day (2024) he sent out a podcast, in which he hosts John Mark Hicks (recently retired Professor of Theology at Lipscomb University)—someone who has been in error more than two decades. Alan Highers challenged him in the Open Forum at Freed-Hardeman University more than 20 years ago. If associating with a known false teacher such as Hicks, does not cause brethren to re-evaluate their opinion and use of him, it is doubtful that much else would accomplish it. This article will evaluate the podcast.
The topic was: “How We Read the Bible in the Churches of Christ?” This topic sounds interesting and prompts questions, such as, “Are we reading the Scriptures incorrectly?” and “Is there a better way to read them?” Part of the podcast addresses those issues—but not with any new information.
Origin
McAdams asked Hicks to explain the origin of the churches of Christ. He replied: “In general terms, we come out of the Great Awakening period of the 1810s, the 1820s, and the 1830s.” Your congenial editor would put it this way: Churches of Christ were established in the first century (Rom. 16:16). Over a period of time, departures from the faith grew until the church of the New Testament was just about unrecognizable.
Luther objected to the abuses that had developed, but we do not call ourselves Lutherans. Instead, we shared in common with many the idea of going back to the New Testament and abiding by its teaching. Barton W. Stone and the Campbells were among this group, but we do not call ourselves after them, either. They are not our leaders. It is the idea of restoration we agree with—not their personal views. Both Hezekiah and Josiah engaged in a restoration of God’s law in the Old Testament, and we do the same in following the New.
Hicks stated that the leaders of the early 1800s were interested in: “1. Unity; 2. Restoring the ancient order; and 3. Evangelism.” He is correct in this assessment. All three are found in the book of Acts and should still characterize the church for which Jesus died.
McAdams lamented that some brethren try to deny our roots, but he apparently misunderstands the point. We do not deny that Campbell was part of history any more than the contributions made by Martin Luther. While we appreciate, however, various things that they did, they are not our standard; the Scriptures are. We evaluate their teachings just as the Bereans did Paul. Our emphasis remains on the teaching of the Scriptures.
How We Read
Hicks then claims that the way we read the Bible comes from a Reformed tradition, Calvin, and even the Anabaptist movement. Who knew we needed a Professor of Theology from a “Christian” university to explain it to us? He says that, when we read the Bible, we search for marks of the church, a blueprint for what makes a true or false church; it’s embedded in the document. Okay, guilty. When we read the Scriptures, we do look for information about the church. Since Jesus died for the church, His body, why would we not seek to see what is revealed about it? One teaching is that there is only one (Eph. 4:4). Isn’t that significant?
Hicks quickly crossed over to the subject of worship, concerning which he affirms that there is no list of the five acts of worship. And that proves what? Acts 2:42 lists several practices that the newly-established church did. Later verses add more information. Is God required to give us a list? Has it ever occurred to McAdams and Hicks that God chose to reveal the truth in the way He did for a reason?
Likewise, Hicks continued, God did not give us a list for five steps for salvation. Again, so what? Does that mean we do not need to hear the gospel? Believe it? Repent of our sins? Confess Jesus to be the Son of God? Or be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins? Would a list make any of these responses of man to God’s grace somehow more valid?
Hicks argues that the pattern is not explicit and that we take it upon ourselves to construct a blueprint out of the text. No, we do not construct anything; we recognize the pattern that is there. McAdams chimed in that we make so many assumptions when we construct blueprints. We assume that’s what the Biblical writers were trying to do. We assume: “The primary purpose of the New Testament is to teach us how to do church.” Is there someone who believes this to be the case?
The primary purpose of the New Testament is to teach us Who Jesus is, that He died for our sins, and that He arose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven to receive His kingdom where He reigns at the right hand of God. The gospel is then preached to all the world; those who obey the gospel are added to the church (Acts 2:42), in which we all have certain responsibilities. We are to spread the gospel and also engage in holy living. We are also to worship God correctly.
We do need to know how to “do church,” do we not? Did Paul write to Timothy and Titus about elders and deacons as a frivolity? Was his insistence on male leadership just a whim? Concerning worship, Jesus taught there was such a thing as true and also false worship (John 4:20-24). Unless we study the New Testament, how will we know which is which?
A Theological Hermeneutic
So, according to John Mark Hicks, Luke is not particularly telling us how to do church. “Is the pattern a written blueprint that we discover from the text? Or is it the pattern of the unfolding of the worth of God, the identity of God, the actuality of God in the story of Scripture?” What kind of gobbledygook is this? Where do these thoughts and definitions come from? Is the use of them not an assumption that the consideration of these ideas constitutes the theological approach to the Scriptures—and that it is superior to every other approach?
Hicks continues with his theological hermeneutic. He affirms that the Bible reader should be asking, “Who is God in this text? What’s the identity of God? How is God trying to form us? What is God wanting to make us into? What are we supposed to become?” Those are all good questions, but they are not found in a list anywhere—to paraphrase Hicks.
One of the key techniques of a false teacher is to arbitrarily set up an either/or situation, such as pitting love against law when both are required (John 14:15; 2 John 6). Here it seems that questions about God’s identity and purpose stand in opposition to drawing conclusions about the church or worship. It is not a matter of considering one or the other. Christians can do both.
1 Corinthians 16:2
The point here was somewhat vague, but it was affirmed that this verse does not relate to the church treasury—and that the important thing is that we give from the heart. Once again, this is not an either/or issue. The day of the week is important since Paul gave the same instruction to other churches, but most of those who lead the Lord’s table do emphasize the heart and cite 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 or 2 Corinthians 9:6-7.
Prooftexts
Apparently, prooftexting is a dirty word for some, but what is wrong about finding a text that teaches a certain truth? If an Israelite wanted to know if he should keep the Sabbath day holy, would it be a bad thing to find where it said in the scroll the law governing that day? If Christians today need to show that the Law of Moses has been done away with, is it wrong to go to several passages that deal with that fact?
Amos 6
Amos 6:1-6 is cited as a passage that is taken out of context and used against the use of instrumental music. Actually, it was Adam Clarke, the Methodist commentator, who did that. Most brethren have not used that argument in years—especially since there’s so much else available on that subject. Here would be a good question to ask Hicks: “Is instrumental music in the worship of God authorized for Christians?” Please answer yes or no. Is it not strange that such a topic was not dealt with?
Agreement
Yes, there are things that we can agree with McAdams and Hicks on. We both agree that anything that subverts the gospel is wrong. We both believe that people must confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (in order to be saved). We cannot malign God by calling Him a liar or immoral in any way. Notice that Hicks did not include being baptized for the remission of our sins and being made part of the one church. That would have been easy to specify, would it not?
Our Usual Hermeneutics
To show the superiority of Hicks’ Theological Hermeneutics, he points out that, in using our usual system, that we have divided over (wait for it)—the use of the treasury, Bible classes, and the use of one cup. Those divisions have been unfortunate, but in many cases, brethren were conscientiously trying to do what they believed was right. Just because we try to reason correctly with the Word of God does not mean we always succeed. There is no need to throw out, however, a system which produces agreement 99% of the time.
Racial Division
Hicks and McAdams try to make a case against restoration efforts. Citing Peter as one who subverted the gospel by failing to respect the unity that brings all men together, they point out that in the 1950s and 1960s churches of Christ were growing dramatically. But churches often practiced segregation, which was wrong and a hindrance to the gospel. So, here we are, telling denominations they were wrong in worship and in their church practices, yet we were practicing segregation.
First, in that culture, the denominations were largely segregated, also. Second, did Peter’s action, described in Galatians 2, invalidate what he preached on the Day of Pentecost? Third, yes, there have been times when Christians have fallen short of being the church the way God designed it. Does that invalidate all the truth that has been taught? Your congenial editor has not been a part of a segregated congregation—ever—and that goes back to the ’60s.
Hicks’ Conclusion
The correct pattern, according to Hicks (he is the only authority for this), does not involve stringing prooftexts together, but finding the pattern in the trajectory and flow of the activity of God and Jesus by the Spirit. Below is his basis for unity:
Jesus is Lord.
God created the world.
Jesus is raised from the dead.
God became human.
The goal of God is to form us into the image of God.
This is our common ground, according to Hicks. We can disagree on other matters, he says—just not these.
Who made him the expert? This approach leaves fellowship wide open with respect to salvation (the manner in which one is saved), worship (what ought to be done and what should be abstained from), and things pertaining to the church (who is part of it, how is it to be governed?).
Pooh-poohed is the idea that we need to get things right—that we must be perfect or we won’t go to heaven. Aren’t these things our goals? Shouldn’t we be striving for perfection? Jesus thought so (Matt. 7:21-27). So did the writer of Hebrews (5:9; 6:1). But then, they weren’t college professors.