Hard line churches of Christ have long distinguished themselves from other Christian groups by their practice of acappella singing (no instruments of music) and the Lord’s Supper (communion, eucharist) every Sunday. Hard line Churches of Christ have also split over how to collect money and spend it. If you asked a preacher in the hard line Churches of Christ why these practices are important, he would reply that they only practice what the Bible teaches.
Hard line Churches of Christ have emphasized the hermeneutical principles of Command, Example and Necessary Inference. In general, all Christian groups practice these principles, but in specific, only a few small sects practice these principles the way the Churches of Christ understand them, these principles having descended from strict Presbyterian and Zwinglian principles.
The churches of Christ generally make a big deal out of the Silence of the Scriptures, meaning that in the absence of a command, example or inference, there is no authority to create a ritual or worship in a manner that has not been authorized by God. Scary stories are recounted: how Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, and the nephews of Moses, serving during one of the first times in the tabernacle, brought unauthorized fire to worship God with, and were struck dead (Lev 10). Therefore we need to be careful that every act of worship in the church be authorized, lest we incur God’s wrath.
The parallel to the Nadab and Abihu story (2000 B.C.), is the story of Ananias and Sapphira (shortly after the death and resurrection of Christ, at the start of the church) who saw how much honor people were receiving who contributed to the poor Christians in Jerusalem, and pretended to give a greater amount than they actually gave, and were struck dead (Acts 5). Commentators are adamant that this is a parallel to the deaths of Nadab and Abihu at the start of tabernacle worship. But notice the difference: Nadab and Abihu were struck dead for not following a specific command of God for a literal ritual of worship. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for an act of the heart–lying to the Holy Spirit, the apostle Peter said.
And that is where the Churches of Christ went astray. They are quite sure that God is still looking for specifically proscribed rituals of worship (as in the tabernacle worship), and have relegated the acts of the heart to the back pew. So each of the five acts of worship in the Churches of Christ (Singing, Praying, Preaching, Giving, the Lord’s Supper) has been carefully worked out so it is not “strange fire.” Except that there are no lists of rules in the writings of the apostles. And what few commands there are were written to individual congregations in the first few years after Christ’s resurrection. It has to be inferred that these commands are for us and for all time.
Some in the Churches of Christ are upset that there is not a clearer guide as to how to run church worship services on Sunday mornings. Others in the Churches of Christ are glad that is unclear, because then they can show off their hermeneutical expertise in ferreting out the commands behind the stories in the book of Acts: since the Christians at Troas met on the first day of the week to say goodbye to Paul and his entourage, and “broke bread”, then that must mean that we have to take communion every first day of the week (Acts 20). Never mind that they met in an upper room (irrelevant), and that Paul preached until midnight (irrelevant) and that he performed a miracle (irrelevant). The only piece of the puzzle that is an inferred command is the first day of the week breaking of bread. And how often does the first day of the week occur? Every week! Can we take the Lord’s Supper on other days of the week? No! Why not? We have no example; the silence of the scriptures prohibits any other practice.
There is a fascinating story about how the two and a half tribes of the nation of Israel that were settled on the eastern side of the Jordan River built a stone altar, a replica of the altar in front of the official tabernacle of worship (Joshua 22). The tribes on the western side of the Jordan River gathered as an army to attack the eastern tribes because they had built a replacement altar, unauthorized by God. The eastern tribes said, no, they were commemorating the fact that they were united with the tribes on the other side of the Jordan by building an identical altar. This calmed the western tribes down. A commemoration of unity was fine, a substitute was not. Which is a hermeneutical problem for the Churches of Christ. The eastern tribes still had no authority or command from God to allow them to build that altar. Yet the western tribes were fine with it as long as it was not a substitute.
If we were to take that principle: we can make up rituals in worship to God, as long as they are not substitutes for what God has asked for, then we would have a totally different hermeneutic, one that would look very similar to the varied landscape of Christian expressions we see today.
Jesus was angry at the Pharisees because they paid a tenth of even their garden herbs to God, “straining out a gnat” out of their tea, Jesus described them, but they “swallowed a camel” when it came to actually loving God and loving their neighbors (Matt 23). And that will always be the result when we take our eyes off the focal point of what Jesus and the apostles taught, and substitute it for a list of rules we have ferreted out of the stories in the early church.
One of the great substitutes the hard line Churches of Christ have made is to say that the center of the gospel are the rules for Sunday morning church.
Ex-Church of Christ Blog 
The main objective of the coC is that of “what to do,” instead of “who to become.” Very seldom do they address the inner being of the seeker. If I’m wrong please correct me.
Phil,
I have been a member of the church of Christ for 40 years and I have never heard that idea taught nor seen it modeled. The “main objective” of the churches I have attended has been to become Christ like, Christ centered and to seek the lost and point them to God.
I went to a cofC for 30+ years and never heard any preacher talk about being Christ-like. Tragically, Jesus was rarely mentioned.
I stumbled onto your blog putting down the Churches of Christ. This note is in response to your article on “Command, Example, & Necessary Inference”. I think each person who wants to discover their creator will search “hit & miss” until he/she finds a consensus of information that seems to fit. My personal experience was to find the truth about God and not to find a group that fit my idea of God. I spent several years with the Baptists, about one year with the Christian Science Church, and smaller amounts of time with the Jewish Synagogue, Mormons, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Seventh Day Adventists. This took place when I was finishing High School and into my College years. Each of these groups claimed that they were “correct” in their worship of the same God from the Bible. I became so discouraged that I gave up. It was not until about 10 years later when a neighbor woman studied the Bible with my wife that I sarcastically tried to prove her wrong about the Bible. The lady was very nice and said that she could not answer all my questions and so I agreed to study with a more knowledgeable member. What was refreshing is that the person I studied with would not give his opinion, he would just quote a Bible verse and let me decide what it meant. If he thought I came to a wrong conclusion, he would just quote another verse in opposition to my conclusion which exposed my wrongful analysis. He would then have me read Bible verses that harmonized the two seeming contradictory verses. This was a wonder revelation to me. I was learning “Command, Example, & Necessary Inference” without the topic being discussed. Hermeneutics is a natural, logical progression of understanding and can be applied to non-biblical doctrines as well. An example is the US Court system except that the “Commands” can be changed by Congress.
One of things you do not mention is that “denominations” have written doctrines that they adhere to. When a denomination uses an “authority” outside of the Bible that can be shown to be against or does not harmonize with the scripture, I personally cannot agree with that denomination. I do not mean to say that I hate the people I have studied with. I mean to say that I disagree with their “doctrine”. The Apostle Paul did this in Act 17. I have studied with denominations enough that a member will defend their doctrine even when I can show them that it is against the Bible’s teaching. I almost always begin a study with someone from a denomination by saying: “If you can show me that my understanding of the Bible is wrong or incorrect, then I will be willing to change or adapt to your understanding”. This is because my intent is not to “defend”, but to get to the truth.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but you might want to be more careful in your references. It was Troas in Acts 20, not Ephesus in Acts 19.
Thanks! Updated.
I was saddened to enter “command, example, necessary inference” (a much older hermeneutical principle than you record — but I won’t argue your ideas in your blog) only to find the first your website first. if you must leave us, then move on…
Joshua 22 is not problematic for the direct command, example, necessary inference hermeneutics. If we consider Gods command to Israel in Deuteronomy when it came to altars. Please read Deuteronomy 13:12-16. There we see they followed exactly what God commanded. Deuteronomy 13:12–16: “If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’ (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.”
Hi Chris,
I don’t disagree with you. I’m wondering what your point is.
I am not sure what Chris’s point was exactly but i would like to continue the thought. Joshua 22 is not a problem at all. Verse . 23 says “If we have built ourselves an altar to turn from following the Lord, or if to offer on it burnt offerings or grain offerings, or if to offer peace offerings on it, let the Lord Himself require an account.” Verse 26 and 27 says,” Therefore we said, ‘Let us now prepare to build ourselves an altar, not for burnt offering nor for sacrifice, 27 but that it may be a witness” Clearly they are not intending to worship God at this place, at least originally who knows later on with the children of Israel. I am sorry this is a bad example. This is like putting up the quote from Joshua 24:15 as for me and my house we will serve the lord. It is a reminder for all who go there they are Gods people. And actually Joshua proves this type of authority in the old testament. Because they acknowledge if they were building a alter then they should have been killed. And if this is Chris’s point then i agree with that also.
Hi Aaron, my point was that the writers use of Joshua 22 as a problem for the hermeneutics ( command, necessary inference, direct example) is incorrect. In Joshua 22 the issue is whether or not the 2.5 tribes have built an altar to replace the one in the tabernacle; which would have been against God’s direct command Deuteronomy 13). In Joshua 22:17 we see the tribes on the western side of the Jordan were worried the 2.5 tribes on the east had done what was done at Peor (Numbers 25:1-5) where they participated in worship of Baal and or unprescribed worship. So the issue in Joshua 22 is false unprescribed worship and the question of whether or not the 2.5 tribes had built an altar to replace the one in the tabernacle. My point was that according to Law the Children of Israel on the Western side of the Jordan did exactly what God had prescribed them to do (Deuteronomy 13:14) A direct command which is to go and investigate if they are worshipping in an unprescribed way. After investigating, they realized the altar was built not to offer burnt offering or grain offering on (which would have been disobedient) but to commemorate the altar in the tabernacle. Joshua 22’s altar built by the 2.5 tribes served as a monument not a replacement of the true altar in the tabernacle. There were 5 other monuments set up by the children of Israel in the land of Canaan. The writer of this article actually proves hermeneutics by using Joshua 22 because in it they followed God’s command to inquire if there is false worship which would have been an abomination and if found to be true destroy it and those that built it. When they inquired about the altar and it’s meaning and use the tribes of Israel on the Western side of the Jordan realized it wasn’t being used for burnt offering or grain offerings and it was only a monument. If the 2.5 tribes had been burning sacrifices on that altar they were to be killed and it was to be destroyed according to Deuteronomy 13.
Who are any of us to question God’s intentions and wisdom? Which I believe the writer of this article is doing. When I consider the way in which the O. T. Foreshadows the N.T. and the seriousness of the approach Jesus’ disciples took to obeying His commands who am I to say that the example the apostles set and the Holy Spirit wrote down for us doesn’t really matter! I’m not and don’t plan on ever speaking against the teaching of the Holy Spirit but I believe in humility we should all do our best to follow with the right heart, attitude, and gratitude for what has been done by our Lord and Savior Jesus. The way we interpret Gods Word must be approached in humility and I would beg everyone here to consider that although the people inside the church are flawed it doesn’t mean that the Word is. People are flawed but Gods Word is Not. Consider that the enemy is a master of twisting Gods Word and to attack the hermeneutical approach to understand Gods prescribed worship in the N.T. Is just another one of the enemies ways of leading people astray. The true issue is most likely much deeper than acapella singing or observing the Lord’s supper each first day of the week but much more about finding a way to justify what they want to do instead of submitting to authority! I definitely see the wisdom in observing the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week because it helps me to focus my heart on the price that was paid for my sin. It’s not hard or difficult but so many denominations choose not to even consider the example set by the first century Christians but instead submit themselves to a man and lazily follow whatever he thinks is right.
Hi Chris, Jesus was clear about what He wanted. The apostles backed Him up. Nothing hidden and difficult to understand. But Jesus was fiercely against adding extra commands where there were none. Beware!
There are usually at least Three Commandments or Laws from GOD that are usually either Ignored, Avoided, Falsely Taught or Not Properly Taught, Violated, Partially Taught and Disobeyed in almost all the Churches of CHRIST that i have visited and tried to worship our GOD at in California…as per 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and 1 Timothy chapter 2. Most of them were teaching false doctrine and false teaching or only teaching and preaching partial truth.
1) Women speaking in church meetings/assemblies/services/congregational meetings and in church bible study classes that include men
2) Women teaching men in church assembly meetings
3) Women not wearing a veil or artificial head covering whenever they pray
4) Since it is disgraceful, dishonorable, a reproach, and shameful for a man to have long hair, then should it not be just the opposite or the same for a woman to have hair that would be cut to medium length, short or shaved lengths of hair on her head? If a woman is cutting her glory or rather her hair to medium, short or shaven lengths, then shouldn’t she not also then be shameful and dishonorable just like the man with long hair? If this is a sin, then it is either truly ignored, avoided, rejected, not taught properly or rather falsely taught.