The ‘Biblic‘ Basis of the Ordinances (with Apologies to C. H. Forney)

“What, then, is an ordinance? We cannot go to the New Testament for a definition of the term…” -- C. H. Forney, “The Philosophic Basis of the Ordinances,” 1906

Friends,

I have been surprised by the response to my “Radical CGGC Orthodoxy” discussion. Honestly, I intended it to answer the charge that Emerging Church people are weak in the area of Truth and to mention the Radical Orthodoxy Movement, which is new, difficult to understand , not as well known as I think it should be and potentially useful.

What I didn‘t expect when I began that discussion is how much heat it would generate over the illustration I used regarding Forney‘s impact on the CGGC's understanding of the ordinances.

During about the last 20 years I have invested a lot of passion in a search for a biblical understanding of the meaning of the rituals of Feet Washing, the Lord‘s Supper and Baptism. Since the “Radical CGGC Orthodoxy” discussion generated so much conversation, I‘d like to give you a chance to pick apart something I'm thinking about.

I hope you will respond graciously.

To set this up, I will make some remarks about the impact of C. H. Forney‘s book, The Philosophic Basis of the Ordinances. My guess is that Forney would be surprised if he knew how much impact his short book still has.

The subtitle of the book makes it clear that even Forney didn’t think of his work as a comprehensive answer to the question of the meaning of the ordinances. The subtitle is: “BEING AN INDIRECT, BUT CONCLUSIVE, PROOF THAT FEETWASHING IS A DIVINELY INSTITUTED ORDINANCE.” Note the very important words, “INDIRECT” and “CONCLUSIVE” (not Comprehensive or Exhaustive).

Also, I believe that we need to note the limits Forney placed on the usefulness of his understanding of an ordinance. In the book, in the “Analysis of an Ordinance,” section, Forney acknowledged that neither the term ordinance nor the term sacrament “can be regarded as a scriptural name.” (16) He added, “We cannot go to the New Testament for a definition of the term (ordinance)…” (16)

And we need to face the reality that, in the end, Forney despaired of understanding the concept of an ordinance biblically. Forney actually said,

“The only way, therefore, of arriving at a satisfactory conception of an ordinance in its Christian sense is to take those ordinances which by common consent are admitted to be what are otherwise called "sacraments," and by analyzing them determine what are their essential elements.” (16)

For C. H. Forney, the definition of an ordinance can’t be biblically derived. It can only be based on what is acknowledged by common consent to be an ordinance or a sacrament, not from the study of Scripture, but from church history.

Forney’s Philosophic Basis… is impressive. It is scientific in its precision. It is no wonder that its impact has been great. C. H. Forney is the father of modern CGGC thought and this work, more than any of his others, makes the head absolutely spin.

But, the question must be asked: What if Forney had not despaired of a search for a biblical understanding of the ordinances? What if he had not turned to philosophy?

We should be thanking Forney for the honesty of his subtitle and for his openness about his belief that the notion of an ordinance is not biblical. Forney knew that the material in his book was indirect and that it was not comprehensive.

All this is to say: I wonder if it’s time that we reconsider this definition of the ordinances that its creator admitted is not rooted in Scripture. We claim that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice. Yet, by Forney’s own word, we are not basing our understanding of the ordinances on the Bible.

Before I proceed, I give two explanations of what follows:

1. I offer this humbly. Don’t think that I suppose that my thought is on the level of Forney’s or that it should replace Forney‘s. I have no such delusions about the importance of my thinking. This is merely a description of where my Bible study has led me. I am putting this on the blog--a place where this sort of discussion can happen and that where we don’t need to take ourselves seriously.

2. I am more confident in the value of what I have written in the preceding paragraphs than in what follows. I take Forney at his word. I believe that the apologies he made in his subtitle and in his analysis of an ordinance were sincere--and meant to be taken seriously. And, I believe that he’d be surprised that we are still making as much of his book as we are. On the other hand, I am concerned that no one else seems to see what I see in Scripture.

Biblical Covenants and their ‘Signs

According to the first account of the Lord’s Supper to have been penned, based on the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, on the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus took bread. Then, after He and the disciples had eaten, He took the cup. According to Paul’s ancient and inspired account, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood….”

Paul then began his commentary on Jesus’ actions. He said, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

According to Paul and to the Gospel writers, the meaning of the Lord’s Supper is connected to the establishment of the Covenant. Both Paul and Luke use the term New Covenant.

The establishment of the New Covenant had been prophesied by Jeremiah centuries before Jesus. In Jeremiah 31:27-34, Jeremiah foretold the coming of the day when the Lord would make a new covenant with His people. This new covenant would not be like the one He established with the Israelites’ forefathers when He led them out of Egypt. It would be a covenant in which each person would be responsible for his own relationship with God and in which all people would be judged for their own sins.

That old covenant established by God at the time of the exodus was not the only covenant in Israel’s past. God had also established covenants with Adam and Abraham, among others.

Each covenant defined what it meant for a person to live correctly in the eyes of God. And, in each covenant there was an act of worship that the Lord established to serve as what is called the ‘sign’ of the covenant.

In God’s covenant with Abraham, the sign was circumcision.

“Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you… Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."” (Gen. 17:1-11 and 14. Emphasis mine.)

When, in future generations, Abraham’s descendants circumcised their sons they were proclaiming that they lived under God’s covenant with Abraham.

In the covenant of the Law given through Moses, the sign was the observance of the Sabbaths.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' " (Ex. 31:12-17. Emphasis mine.)

The reference to “Sabbaths” in the plural in verse 12 probably indicates that the religious festivals commanded by the Law served as signs of the covenant as well as the weekly day of rest on the seventh day.

When the Israelites rested on the seventh day and when they observed the religious festivals they were proclaiming that they were living under the covenant of the Law. This explains the intensity of the Pharisees’ arguments with Jesus over the Sabbath.

Though the word sign does not appear, it is likely that the untouched tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the sign of God’s covenant with Adam and Eve. As long as the fruit of the tree was uneaten, Adam and Eve were demonstrating to the Lord that they accepted the covenant.

The untouched state of the Tree was a proclamation to the Lord that the man and the women were living according to His covenant with them.

The first mention of a sign of the covenant in Scripture actually appears in the story of Noah. It is unique in Scripture in that it is a sign to be kept by the Lord, not by His people.

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." (Genesis 9:8-16. Emphasis mine.)

Understanding the biblical basis of a covenant, one question has raged in my mind for years. And, I can only see one answer to the question. The question is: What is the sign of the New Covenant? Or, realizing that the Sabbaths (plural) were the sign of the Covenant of the Law, what are the signs (plural) of the New Covenant?

To me there can on be one answer. That answer is: Feet Washing, the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. These three acts of worship serve as the signs of the New Covenant.

I believe that the language Jesus used when He gave the cup to the disciples would have been obvious to them as Jews. They knew very well about the covenants. They knew that covenants had signs. To me, the meaning of the words of Jesus to His Jewish followers in context was, “This cup is the sign of the new covenant. It represents my blood.”

And, in fact, that appears to be what Paul means when he says, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Paul is saying that the taking of the Lord’s Supper proclaims acceptance of the New Covenant in exactly the same way circumcision proclaimed the covenant with Abraham and the keeping of the Sabbaths proclaimed the covenant of the Law.

Long before I entered post this on the blog, I sent a rough draft to two CGGC pastors, whom I respect. One of them participates on the blog, the other doesn’t. One of the two pointed out that I may have made a case for the Lord’s Supper being a sign of the New Covenant but that I have not made a case for Baptism or Feet Washing.

His point is well taken. I freely acknowledge that problem. I hope to begin a discussion, not give the book-length version of by view. To give the criticism its due in passing, however, I’ll simply mention the centrality of Baptism to our faith reflected in Paul’s assertion that there is, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism“ (Ephesians 4:5) and that in connection to Feet Washing that Jesus directly connects Feet Washing to His announcing the New Commandment, when He explains: “as I have loved you so you must love one another.” (The past tense of the verb, ‘love’ refers to the act of Feet Washing.) I think that these references may be understood as elevating Baptism and Feet Washing to the level of sign of the covenant.

-------------------------------------------

So, there you go.

As I said, this is where my study has taken me. Forney acknowledged that his understanding of an ordinance was indirect. It was “philosophic.” It was not biblical. As I see it, Jesus commanded Feet Washing, the Lord’s Supper and Baptism to be signs, not ordinances, as we think of ordinances. The sign of the covenant is a biblical concept. As Forney said, the concept of an ordinance is not biblical.

So, what do you think?