One of the regular themes on this blog – that takes many different formats – is the tendency for Christians to baptise their applications of scriptural commands and argue this is what Jesus commands. We have a tendency to mandate what we have determined are wise and legitimate applications of scripture despite the fact that these applications are often not what scripture specifically commands. The big question is, why do we have this tendency to do that? There may be a number of reasons.
Tradition
It is very easy to confuse tradition, and what we have determined is the ordinary way churches do things, with what scripture actually demands. It is even harder to shake the sense that this tradition is mandated when it is quite widespread, particularly within the circles in which we move and operate. If all the churches we know do it, and everybody seems to reckon this to be the biblical outworking of a particular command, it can just seem obvious (as we judge it) that this is the biblical outworking of this command. It is just unquestioned unless and until we run into those who do other and, even then, hard to shake the ingrained sense that the Bible must teach this because everyone we know has always done it like that.
Defensiveness
Sometimes, when we run into people who do things differently to us, it can feel like a challenge to the way we do things. My wife often runs into this on work dos. She happens not to drink. That isn’t for any spiritual or otherwise noble reason; she just doesn’t like it and so never got into it. There is zero judgement from her on others who do drink (not least, she is married to somebody who merrily does!) But it is quite common for her to do nothing more than order a coke in a pub to elicit a barrage of defensive comments from people about their drinking, how much they usually drink and the appropriateness of their drinking. But she has never said anything and she isn’t worried about them drinking at all. It is just a defensive reaction to somebody who chooses to do something different.
Often, in churches, I think something similar goes on. We see others doing something differently to us. We can’t necessarily see any biblical reason why they must do the same as us, but it almost feels like a challenge to the way we do things even though the other church haven’t said anything to us or intimated they think we’re wrong to do what we do. This can lead to some defensive (and sometimes ropey) biblical justifications for why we do what we do and, in reality, why everybody else ought to do so too. In reality, what we do might be entirely biblical justifiable, but so might what the other place are doing be too. But we can sometimes let people operating differently become a challenge to us that we feel the need to defend ourselves and that can lead to claims tantamount to the way we do things being the biblical way.
Mistaking “best” for “ordained”
It might be that we genuinely are operating in the best possible way. We might have found applications of scripture that are simply the best way to work (leaving aside questions about how we measure and prove that). But we can soon go from arguing that we believe our way to be best and most fruitful to arguing that this is what Jesus wants everybody to do. We all want to operate in the best way, but we have to be careful that we don’t let what we consider to be best to morph into claims that this is what Jesus commands. Those two things are not the same.
Defining “best” solely by our context
I remember many years ago having a discussion with my dad about the word “best” concerning cars. I can’t remember the context or what prompted it. But I do remember him (rightly) saying that “best” depends on what you’re aiming to do. If you are only interested in the fastest car then what is best is going to be different to the person more interested in the car with the best carrying capacity, or the person looking for the one with most seats, or the person looking for some combination of different things. Best depends on your particular situation and what you are looking for.
The same is true in the church. We might be absolutely convinced that we are engaging in best practice. You might even be right that your church is doing what is best in its setting. But best in one context is not necessarily best in another. Wouldn’t it be ridiculous if I argued that God commands us to reach all kinds of people, the nations are on our doorstep so the best for every church is to build relationships with local mosques and reach out to Muslim people. That might be best practice in my context, but what if you live in a majority white village with no mosque in it? Suddenly, what is best in my context doesn’t translate at all well to yours. The same is true (and is far more prevalent in our literature and at our conference) of the majority white middle class church arguing about what is best – and basically baptising their applications of God’s commands – and telling me that is what is best in my context when it is no such thing. Best for you may not be best for all and certainly may not be what God has commanded for everybody (or necessarily for anybody).
Inability to differentiate broad principles from direct commands
It is interesting – though not surprising – that if the Bible is supposed to be a book for all people across all times, places and cultures, most of what we find in its pages are broad principles that must be wisely applied to different contexts and not direct commands applicable everywhere. If you want to see what a religion formed in one particular place, around one specific culture built around very definite commands on all people, have a look at Islam and how much of it works to some degree in the Middle East but not so brilliantly in Northern Europe. But Christianity is generally built on principles that must be applied contextually.
When we understand this, it makes quite a lot of sense that churches in different places and contexts will look quite different. Of course, there are some direct commands that make all Christians everywhere look the same. But most of them are fairly obvious things – even to unbelievers – like don’t murder, don’t lie and that sort of thing. But most of what we do as churches revolves around the wise application of fairly broad principles that must be contextually applied. Even the more direct commands we have to understand are usually filtered a little through cultural lenses. Do not murder might look the same everywhere but discipline your children has a reasonable degree of cultural flexibility to it. Even the direct commands, which are often not quite as nailed down as some like to suggest they are, might be understood culturally. But most of the Bible, the New Testament particularly, is not direct command and instruction at any rate. It is predominantly principles to be contextually and culturally applied wisely. But if we fail to understand that, we can end up mandating things that are perhaps legitimate, maybe even a wise and best application in our culture and context, but are not actually what Jesus has mandated for all people everywhere.