J. D. Thomas (1910–2004)

This work was penned by J. D. Thomas, Ph. D. Professor of Bible Abilene Christian College and printed in 1958 by Biblical Research Press (ISBN – 0891120017). The self-proclaimed aim of the author is related to the problem of “unsound methods of interpretation” (viii) that have created a very unhealthy atmosphere for the cause of Christ, and Dr. Thomas looks to present methods by which the difficulties and disputes among the Church of Christ in particular can be resolved and brotherly love promoted. At the outset Dr. Thomas notes that new truths are not presented, but that “the primary effort here is to state the principles that can help in the solutions in as precise and accurate a way as possible so that all the readers can grasp and understand them and so that there will be a minimum of room for misunderstandings” (viii). The work is divided into two sections – the first section discussing the methods by which accurate authority can be derived from the Scriptures, and the second section using that method to examine some major and difficult situations that have divided the Churches of Christ.

The overall problem as perceived by Dr. Thomas is related to individual interpretation of the Scriptures. He rightly points out that what those of the brotherhood tend to have disagreements on are not the major doctrines of the New Testament, but those positions held by segments of the brotherhood that produce strong and emotive lines of fellowship because of doctrines drawn from examples, and not command or necessary inference. As a result, there is the problem of examining the relationships “between a required, specific expression of God’s will; and that of optional matters, located in the realm of human choices, which may be used in carrying out that specifically required will;” but, even before we can arrive at a simple and clear method of recognizing what is authoritative “we must be able to definitely classify a given concept as either generic, specific, or an optional choice – as either a ‘binding,’ required matter; or as an optional one” (7). Compounding the problem of an imprecise method of recognizing what is authoritative for Christians today is the intolerance expressed by those in the various camps of doctrinal thought that are convinced they are correct and all others in error.

When discussing the solution to the problem, Dr. Thomas endeavors to show the differences between required and optional matters; the interrelation between generics, specifics, and expedients; matters that are excluded; and the place of “aids.” From there he continues the discussion along the lines of distinguishing what are principles from incidentals; the role of common sense; recognizing patterns of authority; and the significance of silence. Finally Dr. Thomas comes to the real heart of the method and begins a discussion of the interpretation of patterns and examples; specifically, how is pattern authority established; the relationship between examples and optional matters; and the relationship between examples and required matters. At one point in the discussion, Dr. Thomas exposes the backbone of his method and makes the point that there is an adequacy in generic authority, and that generic authority is “all that is needed for action in obeying God” (30). If one has a general requirement imposed by the Scriptures, an exhaustive list of Biblical examples showing potential optional methods of carrying out that requirement is not needed before an optional method can be used – the only caveat given by Dr. Thomas to this general principle is if the optional method of carrying out the requirement contradicts another Scriptural requirement presented elsewhere in the Scriptures.

After finishing the portion that speaks to interpretative method, Dr. Thomas moves into a series of discussions centered on what is commonly called among the brethren as “Institutionalism,” an “ism” that has been persistent in causing division among the Churches of Christ as a whole. The entire section is definitely well presented and proceeds along a logical train of thought, yet the conclusions are unquestionably drawn from the author’s thoughts on the proper method of interpretation. The method of interpretation set forth in the first half of the book become the foundation used by the author in the defense of the conclusions made in the second half of the book. There may be those that have come to this work with an opposing opinion on the topic of Institutionalism and possibly even have been convinced of the validity of Dr. Thomas’ arguments, but the persistence of the Institutional versus non-Institutional Churches of Christ only goes to show that the problem is not only rooted in a difference of interpretation but also has roots spreading from long held and vigorously defended traditions, and tradition in and of itself isn’t “bad,” but becomes bad when (1) it is clearly non-biblical in practice or (2) when an optional tradition is raised to the level of requirement.

The obvious implication being … if one doesn’t believe or can be convinced that their interpretative methods and/or traditions are faulty in some fashion, why change? Although this may be true, this by no means allows one side or the other to treat their brethren, Christian or otherwise, with any less consideration than is expressed by Jesus, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”… (meer)