Bible Names for Bible Doctrines I. Introduction A. A question worth exploring: who are we? 1. An attempt to understand what makes us “us,” and not “them” 2. It can become an attempt to alienate, hate, or condemn “them,” but need not be 3. How come we are who we are, believe what we believe, do what we do? B. The question of “who we are” invariably must reckon with our heritage: what have we been given? 1. We can understand that the past is an anchor in both senses of the term: as providing grounding, but also impeding movement 2. “Who we are” does not have to be entirely defined by “what we have been” 3. Nevertheless, even if we wished to change many things about our heritage, we first still must grapple with that heritage: what is it that we have been given? What was done in the past that continues to shape us? 4. We are not going to be able to effectively understand who we are if we do not reckon with who we have been and why C. The early twenty first century has proven to be a time of identity crisis in the faith 1. All who profess Christ are experiencing one level of identity crisis: who are we as Christians in a society rapidly becoming all the more “post-Christian,” who believes that Christianity has been tried and found wanting (even though the “Christianity” tried has not well reflected the Christ), in which the Christian faith is looked at with great skepticism and derision? 2. As members of churches of Christ, we are experiencing a further level of identity crisis: who really are we and what do we really stand for? a. Having gained some currency in “greater Evangelicalism” thanks to its more ecumenical posture, should we see ourselves in greater alignment with Evangelicalism, or should we continue to insist on our distinctiveness? b. How important is our doctrinal stance versus our practical behaviors? Is “soundness” in a church primarily defined by what is taught or what is done? c. What should be our ideals? What do we privilege and prioritize among the ideals in the messy and compromised world of the real? D. In the midst of such an identity crisis, we do well to explore how we have arrived where we are, and the heritage we have been bequeathed: what of the restoration plea in the twenty-first century? 1. Is there still value to the call to the restoration of the New Testament faith? 2. How do we best restore New Testament faith in the twenty-first century? E. To this end, let us explore the call for Bible names for Bible doctrines 1. Why insist on Bible names for Bible doctrines? 2. How is language used to manipulate understanding? 3. What dangers are posed by how we speak of Biblical truth? II. Bible Names for Bible Doctrines A. The call for “Bible names for Bible doctrines” went out as a result of the tendency toward obfuscation based on terminology 1. Part of the concern was based in comprehension: many theological and technical terms have developed within Christianity, and are often relatively inaccessible to the “average” Christian a. Sanctification, justification, predestination, election on a basic level b. Of the additions of “-ologies” there is no end: theology, Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, etc. c. Many early Restorationists also manifested great discomfort with the terminology associated with Trinitarianism and its creedal formulations; some no doubt did so because of questioning orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, but others were grounded mostly in concern about the lack of Biblical antecedent in how the nature of God was being explained d. The use of such terms without explanation or clarification can give the impression that one is attempting to overwhelm people with dazzling intelligence, and grounding their claims in that wisdom as opposed to Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:15) 2. But the greater drive for the concern was the promulgation of false doctrines through the expansion or re-definition of terms perpetuated in “Christendom” a. The definition of “baptism” was expanded and altered from “immersion, a dipping”, to “a Christian religious ritual involving immersion, pouring, or sprinkling”; the new definition was then read into the text, and the translators of the KJV were instructed to transliterate baptisma into “baptism” as opposed to translating it “immersion” b. Greek ekklesia was translated by English church, despite its derivation from Old English kirche -> Greek kyriakon, “of the Lord,” and not “assembly” like its original Greek meaning, thus justifying the primary building / organizational associations which go along with “church” 3. In both sets of situations, false doctrines and ideas were promoted, advanced, and even taken for granted because people got away from the way the Bible spoke about such things B. What shall we say to these things? C. There is a valid critique behind “Bible names for Bible doctrines” 1. Yes, behind “justification” were plenty of concepts of “imputation” brought in from Latin nuances which did not exist in Greek or Hebrew, turning a reckoning into an imputing 2. Yes, “baptism” has been used to obfuscate Biblical teaching about the importance of immersion in water for remission of sin; we have to redefine “baptism” for all who hear the term 3. Yes, “church” now means building and organization more than a collective of people, and we have to redefine “church” for all who hear the term 4. Yes, the technical language of Christianity can become a caricature of itself; witness the meme which has Jesus ask the theologians who He is, and they respond that “you are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning in our interpersonal relationships,” and Jesus asked them what they said! D. Yet to insist on “Bible names for Bible doctrines” in any absolute or dogmatic way is counter-productive and to focus on a part and miss the whole, for the critique behind “Bible names for Bible doctrines” speaks to the power of language to frame, and thus to either lead to the truth, or to lead people away from it 1. After all, what’s the first thing people think about when hearing “Bible names for Bible doctrines”? The Bible does not call itself the Bible anywhere in its pages! 2. A lot of the “technical” words used in English derive from much more basic terms used in Greek or Latin: kerygma is from Greek kerugma, “preaching, proclamation,” which is what kerygma is about; justification from Latin iustitio, “to be just or right,” and thus about how one is made just or right; sanctification from Latin sanctus, “holiness,” etc., and all of these terms are used in the Greek and Latin editions of the Bible! 3. Furthermore, just because a “Bible name” is being used does not guarantee that said Bible name is being used as the authors of the Scriptures intended it to be used 4. “Bible names for Bible doctrines” is a critique of how Biblical truth often gets distorted through the manipulation and distortion of language; that critique is absolutely warranted, even if it equally applies between the use of “Bible names” and post-Biblical terms E. We do well to explore “the issue behind the issue” and the way language works III. Language, Framing, and Understanding A. We like to think of language as purely a tool for communication, but its power is far deeper than that B. Genesis 1:1-31, Psalm 33:6-9: YHWH made the heavens and earth by speaking; words have great creative power C. “Those in the know” recognize the power of using language to frame issues and understandings: a function of rhetoric designed to advance a certain agenda 1. This is most often used, and recognized, in the political realm 2. The boundaries of what is “realistic” is set; ideas outside of that “mainstream” are considered crazy until the “Overton window” of possibility shifts to include them, for good or ill 3. The terms for each issue are also very deliberately set so as to lead to a certain policy conclusion a. Framing taxation as legal theft, for instance b. Critique of wealth inequality is seen as “class warfare,” but the ability of the wealthy to exploit the poor is “good business” c. Consider the massive change in attitudes toward homosexuality in America; partly due to framing as same sex relationships, an alternative lifestyle, etc., de-emphasizing the nature of the sexual behavior d. Those against abortion as “pro-life,” no matter their views on other subjects related to life; those who at least support its legality as “pro-choice,” often dehumanizing the child to justify the position 4. And what if you do not fit into the binaries, or resist the way issues get framed? You can try to re-frame things, but you generally get steamrolled and associated with whichever side of the framework makes the most sense to others with whom you speak D. This same kind of power in framing of language exists in Christianity as well 1. How is it that “the Church”, in the eyes of most, is a way of speaking about the Roman Catholic Church? Their framing of the rhetoric, in which they are the original church from which all others have splintered 2. Have you ever tried explaining to Roman Catholics or “mainline” Protestant that you are neither Catholic nor Protestant, but simply a Christian? Most just will label you “Protestant” whether you wish to own that moniker or not E. We must be aware of these power dynamics as we speak regarding the faith 1. Many times we will have to re-train and re-explain since people’s framework is built by the world and not by the Bible 2. We will not always be successful in our attempts to frame and speak truth in the world, but we can at least always work to purge ourselves of false framing and insist on a Biblical framework for all we teach and preach F. Many before us perceived such things in a critique of the “language of Ashdod” 1. Nehemiah 13:23-27: Nehemiah found Israelite men who had married women of the neighboring nations, and heard their children speaking half Hebrew, and half the language of Ashdod 2. To not know the language of the people of God meant to not understand that which was handed down in the Law of Moses; the “language of Ashdod,” therefore, is the corruption of language through worldly compromise 3. Thus, our ancestors in the faith saw this framework dynamic playing out, and warned against perpetuating it G. Classic example: “Church of Christ” as an adjective 1. One common use of the “language of Ashdod” is to use “church of Christ” in a sectarian sense 2. In a world full of denominations and sectarian divisions, it is easy to see “us” as the “church of Christers” and “them” as whatever sect or party with which they associate 3. And so, in a desire to speak specifically among one another or to those without, we may speak of a “church of Christ school,” or “church of Christ preacher,” or, oddly, a “church of Christ congregation” 4. Beyond the sectarian “language of Ashdod” it represents, it also is just awful English; why not go with Restorationist? Or just own it, and say Campbellite? 5. Ah, but “Restorationist” or “Campbellite” would prove too sectarian for our comfort and conscience, even though turning “church of Christ” into an adjective is no different! 6. We must resist the “language of Ashdod” regarding this and other matters; if we are striving to be simply Christians, then there may be schools associated with some of us, preachers among us, and individual congregations among us; we have no need to denominate ourselves, implicitly accepting the denominational framework of the world! H. We have seen the power of framing in language, and concerns about the “language of Ashdod”; what, then, shall we say about all of these things? IV. Dangers of Language A. As we have seen, there is great power in how language gets framed: if we let the powers and principalities set the terms of discourse, it will prove very difficult to refute error and stand firm in the truth! B. To this end there is great value in rooting our understanding of all things, and even how we speak of all things, in terms of what God has made known in Jesus (Colossians 2:1-9) C. We do well to allow the Scriptures to inform how we speak 1. The Psalms were made for repetition, chanting, and singing 2. Scripture memorization has its merits 3. If we are saturated in God’s words as He has communicated them, we will be less likely to import a foreign framework or structure into our view of God in Christ D. As we have seen, there is great danger from the “language of Ashdod,” giving into the ways others frame language E. And yet, “Bible names for Bible doctrines” is no guarantee, for there is an even more pernicious danger: using a Bible name or term but in a distorted way, one not fully consistent with how God used it 1. Akin to Israel creating a golden calf and calling it YHWH (e.g. 1 Kings 12:28): people then associate the true God with the idolatrous statue 2. It can be done with words, like “worship” a. Functional modern English definition of “worship”: going to church; activities in church b. Those “in the know” may quibble with the functional definition, but such is the essence of how the word has now been used c. Biblical definition: prostration, rendering obeisance (shahach, proskuneo) / service and ministration to God (‘abad, latreuo) d. Thus, what the Scriptures speak of as its own act of displaying subservience and/or humiliation or what they speak of as religious service get turned into one specific expression of service; misunderstandings, distortion, and disputation abound 3. It can be done with doctrines involving words, like “Word only” a. While some adherents of the “Word only” position attempt to give pride of place to the Spirit, and understand their doctrine as the Holy Spirit primarily working through the Word of God today, many conflate it even further, suggesting that whatever the Spirit does the Word does b. On account of this conflation, wherever many Christians see “Spirit,” they functionally think “Word” c. In such an instance the product of a Person of the Godhead supplants that Person in priority and consideration, and it becomes all the more difficult to demonstrate to such a one the ways in which the Spirit works beyond the communication of the Word! 4. Therefore, it is not enough to merely use “Bible names”; we must seek to use Bible names properly, to use them in communication as God intended! F. We do well, therefore, to give thought to how we use language and whether we are falling into the various pitfalls of the “language of Ashdod,” capitulating to the framework of the world, or distorting the very words which God used V. Conclusion A. We have explored “Bible names for Bible doctrines” and the critique which stands behind it B. In truth, “Bible names for Bible doctrines” misleads as much as it may help, for the issue is less about the precise words used, and more about simplicity and clarity in communication 1. After all, all Biblical terms, at some point, had to be used for the first time! 2. As manifest in Scripture, God’s concern throughout has been to communicate His Word to His people in ways which they could understand: He did not use pretentious language, but the common Hebrew of the Israelites and then the common Greek of the first century world 3. Paul insisted that the Gospel was preached to the Corinthians in simplicity, not in fancy rhetoric (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:15) 4. Therefore, whether we use explicitly Biblical or post-Biblical terms, we do well to define our terms, and be sure to speak so as to make clear and plain what God has made known C. Nevertheless, the critique behind “Bible names for Bible doctrines” is completely on point and worth considering: the tendency to use language to manipulate, distort, and advance error 1. We have seen how the use of certain terms could obfuscate and cause confusion where God had spoken with some clarity, and all to justify later practices and traditions 2. We have considered the dangers of the “language of Ashdod” and warned about the power of how language gets framed in rhetoric, and to seek to use more Biblical paradigms for discussion and thought 3. In a savage irony, even “Bible names” can fall under this critique when Biblical words are not being used as God originally intended, but according to a later distortion in meaning D. Thus, in the end, the issue is less about the language itself and more about how the language is used: we ought to use language to make clear and plain what God has made known, and proclaim it to all, and live by it E. May we grab hold of eternal life in God in Christ, obtaining the resurrection of life! F. Invitation Scripture, Meditation, and Application 1: And said, “O full of all guile and all villainy, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10) For years many have turned aside from the way of truth by insisting on non-Biblical formulations of doctrines and practices of the Christian faith. On account of these distortions the call was made to use Bible names for Bible doctrines. Sometimes the distortions are an attempt to justify false doctrines; other times they involve technical language which leads to more confusion than clarity. We do better to speak the truth clearly and simply as we have opportunity. May we uphold the truth of God in Christ! 2: And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God (1 Corinthians 2:1). Great power is invested in language: not only in its substance, but also in its framing and structure. Through rhetorical devices many in the world seek to deceive and/or persuade people into accepting error, or limiting the power of truth. We must never fall for such deceitful schemes when it comes to the truth of God in Christ. Paul rightly shunned fancy rhetorical techniques and the wisdom of the world when proclaiming Christ crucified. It was the wisdom of the world and rhetoric which led to the condemnation of Jesus and many early Christians; it is through the foolishness of the Gospel that God has saved those who believe. May we proclaim the testimony of God simply and clearly, and hold firm to it! 3: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people (Nehemiah 13:24). In the days of Nehemiah many Israelite men married foreign women and their children did not know the language of their people and their God. It would be difficult for them to come to an understanding of God’s instruction without knowing the language. In a similar way we must be concerned about the “language of Ashdod” among us, accommodating the truth of God to the ways of the world and the religious confusion around us. It will be difficult for people to hear the true Gospel if we speak it in the world’s dialect. May we hold firm to the truth of God in Christ and obtain the resurrection of life in Him! 4: But speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:15). In the end, “Bible names for Bible doctrines” is not the most helpful framework. We can explain the truth of God without using Bible names; the Bible does not even call itself the Bible, and whatever names are in the Bible were new to it at some point. In a savage irony, we can use “Bible names” but not according to God’s intention and thus distort the truth. But the concern behind “Bible names for Bible doctrines,” the ways in which language can be used to distort the truth, is quite valid, and worthy of consideration. God communicated to His people using the language of the time in a way that could be understood; we should follow that same pattern today. May we speak the truth in love and share in life in Christ for all eternity!