The "New Hermeneutic" An Abandonment of Reason
by Wayne Jackson
Hermeneutics
is the procedure by which certain logical principles are applied to a
document in order to ascertain the author’s original meaning. All literature
is subject to hermeneutical analysis. In this country we have one branch of
our government, the judiciary, which has been designed to practice legal
hermeneutics, i.e., to interpret the law.
Sacred hermeneutics is the
science of Bible interpretation. Everyone, to a greater or lesser
degree—either correctly or incorrectly—employs hermeneutics.
Frequently these days, one
hears about the so-called New Hermeneutic. This method of viewing the Bible
has a number of erroneous components, one of which is this: no conclusion,
which has been drawn as the result of human reasoning, can be established as
a test of Christian fellowship. Note the following example of this approach:
The “Fundamentals of the
Faith” must be held onto at all costs . . . . They are the only “absolutes”
I know. All other matters must be arrived at “hermeneutically” (that is, by
a process of reasoning!) . . . . But any conclusion reached by such a
process should not be made a test of fellowship (Phillips 1990, 5-6).
In the same article, our
brother lists the “Fundamentals of the Faith” as: “the existence of God, the
lordship of Jesus, Bible authority, the one church, the new birth” and,
“genuine commitment to the will, way, and word of God.” Excluded as a matter
of fellowship, among other things, is the use of instrumental music in
Christian worship.
The foregoing article, it
appears to this writer, reflects a very unreasonable and inconsistent
viewpoint. The fact is, not even those matters that our brother listed as
“Fundamentals of the Faith” are accepted independent of reasoning.
His own argument, therefore,
if consistently pursued, would exclude the “Fundamentals” as matters of
faith and fellowship. Consider the following:
(1) Does not inspiration show
that reason is essential in acknowledging the existence of Jehovah? In
Romans 1, Paul argued
that the Gentiles who rejected the revelation of God in nature had become
“vain in their reasonings”
(v. 21).
Is not the argument of
Hebrews
3:4—“Every house is
built by someone; but he that built all things is God”—based upon the
reasoned premise that every effect must have an adequate cause?
(2) How is the “lordship of
Jesus” established apart from reasoning? Isn’t the truth-seeker required to:
(a) assemble testimony from the Bible regarding Christ; (b) ascertain that
the biblical record is reliable; (c) draw conclusions from these premises
relative to the nature of Jesus?
(3) Is reason involved in
establishing Bible authority? How does one know that the Bible is
authoritative unless he: (a) examines the Scriptures’ claim of divine
origin; (b) considers evidence in support of that claim; (c) arrives at the
deduction that the Bible is the word of God?
(4) How does our brother know
that there is only “one church” of which the Lord approves? The New
Testament does not explicitly state that there is one church. It is true
that: (a) there is one body
(Ephesians
4:4); (b) the body is
the church
(Colossians 1:18); (c)
thus, there is one church.
But this conclusion is
derived by reasoning—the very process repudiated by our friend.
(5) If the “new birth” is a
matter of faith, this question is in order: does the new birth include
immersion in water? If so, how do we know? Our misguided brother cannot
demonstrate that baptism is a part of the new birth process without
employing hermeneutical reasoning.
Some contend that the “water”
of
John 3:3-5 is not a
reference to baptism. How would one argue the case for baptism as an element
of the new birth without utilizing logic?
The tragic fact of the matter
is this: the defenders of the New Hermeneutic are determined to have
“fellowship” with whomever they wish—regardless of what the Scriptures
teach. They do not intend that matters like instrumental music be a barrier.
Hence, the New Hermeneutic has been invented to justify their coveted
practice.
The arguments which they are
making would not stand five minutes in a logical discussion wherein the
issues could be pressed with firmness. That is why these brethren, for the
most part, prefer to proselyte privately. The New Hermeneutic is a false
philosophy that undermines the very authority of the Bible.
Other Articles by Wayne Jackson
Tradition Versus Scripture