When is an Example Binding?

by Thomas B. Warren

This book deals with what has been for many years a thorny problem in the field of hermeneutics. Rather than making the mistake of trying to deal with the question (as to when an account of action is binding on men living today) in isolation from the basic principles of hermeneutics, this book goes to the heart of the matter and shows how this particular problem must be integrated with the general hermeneutical problem.

169 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1975

Reviews

[Walter Harrington · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book to get the traditional/standard church of Christ method of determining when an example in the New Testament was binding and when it was not. I knew I would likely disagree with the reasoning, but I wanted to know what the reasoning was, the principles involved, and how it was applied to each example. I have been in this setting for so long that I just absorbed the conclusions, but a method was never clearly and explicitly laid out, and when I started questioning the hermenutic, I saw that examples were applied very inconcsistleny. So, I though Warren, who represented one of the leading logisticians of the coC in the second half of the 20th century, would be a good place to understand the logic behind the reasoning.

I was sorely disappointed. Not because I disagreed with his conclusions-I knew that was going to happen. What disappointed me was that he never actually laid out a method. He just restated the traditional interpretations of several passages, and expected the reader to just see it his way. His basic thesis was: the way to determine if an 'account of action' (he quibbled with the term 'example') is binding is to use logic (reasoning) and the total context. He kept repeating that over and over, I guess because he assumed that it was clear to everyone what he meant, so clear that he didn't have to lay out any principles. The one time he clearly identifies logical rules is when he is defining logic and uses a mathematic example (1. object A is a square 2. object A has a side length of 4in, thus, the following implications are true: Object A's area is 16 square inches and its parameter is 16in [this is not the exact example he used, he used different numbers]). But then he never lays out any of his arguments in that manner.

The problem with this is twofold: 1) even in his example, to agree with it, you have to start with the same euclidian assumptions- which most people do but it is not necessary, and 2) interpreting scripture is much muddier than a clear mathematical proposition (and thus it is even more necessary to clearly lay out your propositions when using a logical argument). From 1 we can see that even if most people would approach a math problem with the same assumptions (axioms), it is far less likely that people will approach a passage of scripture with the same assumptions (e.g., there are many different ideas of how the bible operates and how we should interpret it-CENI is not self-evident). And from 2, if you don't lay out your argument clearly, then there is no discernable method to evaluate. In essence, Warren said 'just use logic', and by 'logic' he meant 'Thomas Warren's interpretation of the passage'.

Warren's tone throughout the book was arrogant and condescending, which was another turnoff. He often used the words 'clearly' and 'obviously' for ideas and propositions that we very much not clear or obvious. He took his interpretations to be self-evident when they were far from self-evident. And he never clearly laid out the principle or methods he used to determine when an example was binding. Warren repeated himself a lot, but never clarified.

If you are looking to understand the coC's hermeneutical method of determining when examples are binding, this book will not help you. If you agree with the traditional views, you will think Warren's argument is sound and makes sense. If you do not, you will not. But you will not discern and actual methods to test.

[Scott Pena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having been challenged with an approach to biblical study that I had never considered (one in which I had to wrestle with to justify my previously held hermeneutic), this book was suggested to me. I read the book hoping that the author would answer the question that is posed in the title. As I approached the mid-way point of the book I didn't think Warren would ever get to answer the real question I had. However, in the final chapter he addresses the issue (quite well). The previous chapters were foundational work building up to the heart of the matter. The beginning of the book establishes a solid hermeneutic (approach to understanding the Bible) and is quite reasonable.

While I found the beginning to be a restatement of what I already knew and the closing a validation of what I already believed, I also found the book to be fairly dry and at times hard to follow. Yet, in perseverance, I was able to find what I was looking for. If the reader can follow the repetition and appreciate the reasonable approach to the book, he will be rewarded with having been taught a solid understanding of biblical hermeneutics.