Consistent themes and big trajectories of God’s Word guide us.

It is not always easy for modern readers to understand what a biblical text meant for the original writer, or what the text should mean for us today. A chasm of time and culture separates modern America from ancient settings such as Sinai or Capernaum. The word of God that once instructed Hebrews not to wear clothes made of wool and linen woven together (Deuteronomy 22:11), for example, does not seem relevant to us.

Nevertheless, the church finds meaning in such passages because they are part of a larger story of God’s self-revelation and the human response. The interpretative task of the church is to discern underlying themes and direction in this big narrative, then use what the Holy Spirit shows us to make practical application for our lives today.

Some ethical or covenant practices shift significantly within the biblical narrative—such as the change from polygamy to monogamy or the movement from animal sacrifice to forgiveness through cross and resurrection. But the biblical stance on a host of other practices remains constant: faithfulness to covenant, for example, or worship of one God. When ethical or spiritual teaching remains consistent throughout the entire biblical narrative, or when the New Testament gives unqualified new instruction, the church today must pay attention.

Shalom Arc project

Prairie Street Mennonite Church in Elkhart, Ind., where I serve on the pastoral team, is living into what we call a Shalom Arc project. We designed this two-year learning process in order to trace the trajectory of God’s saving acts from Genesis to Revelation—and on into the streets of Elkhart.

We say that God is at work in our world to redeem, forgive and restore. Through story, conversation and the arts, Prairie Street Mennonite Church is tracing the biblical story of God’s renewing activity in the world from Creation to New Creation, from Genesis to Revelation. We call the comprehensive salvation that God desires for the world ‘shalom’—a biblical Hebrew word meaning peace, well-being and justice.

The purpose of the Shalom Arc Project is to increase our knowledge of and love for the Bible. Inspiration and instruction from the Big Story of Scripture inspire us to bold witness and service for God today. Along the way we are focusing on peak texts identified by members of the congregation—Bible passages that have made a particular impact on our lives. Some people are memorizing select Bible passages, others are exploring how the Bible relates to the visual arts or cinema or music. We are gaining new understanding of the biblical landscape, learning the sequence of major biblical events and observing how the Bible came into being. We want our lives and our congregation to be part of God’s Big Story. “The arc of salvation history is long, and it bends toward God’s shalom.”

Experiencing the Bible as an unfolding narrative energizes us. No one in our congregation who struggles with the reality of violence or other real-life issues is looking to the Bible as a set of regulations or a divine rule book. We are looking for patterns of divine self-disclosure in history, for the flow of amazing grace, for waymarks that point to a time when God will make all things new (Revelation 21:5).

We want to be part of that story, in relationship with our Creator. We commit to applying what we learn from the Shalom Arc not just to issues of violence but to many questions of how we live faithfully as children of God and participate in God’s mission in the world.

The Bible in relation to other sources

The Shalom Arc discernible in Scripture is the guiding framework for our reflection. With respect to violence, for example, the Book of Genesis explains that sin shattered the shalom of creation and promptly issued in murder (Genesis 4). Persistent violence then pervaded human experience. Prophets foresaw a time when the havoc would end (Micah 4), and Jesus announced the beginning of a kingdom whose members categorically reject violence (Matthew 5–7). In various matters of Bible interpretation we seek such a trajectory: what God intended from the beginning, how sin warps God’s design, how God redeems and restores.

Central though the Bible is to our spiritual discernment, we do not use a “sola scriptura” model, at least if that means the Bible is the only place we look for insight. In talking about violence we also draw on various sources of authority. These include the experience of older people who resisted the military draft and the stories of Anabaptist martyrs. We read recent studies of the influence of handguns or violent video games. We take inspiration from the witness of Martin Luther King Jr. or Dorothy Day. We find rich understandings distilled in the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective.
The meaning of sola scriptura

When Protestant reformers spoke of sola scriptura, they did not intend to draw insight from the Bible alone; they meant that all other sources of authority remain subordinate to the Bible. The same Spirit who inspired the Bible still breathes through the church today. The Spirit will not contradict or countermand the trajectory of the biblical Shalom Arc that culminates in Jesus Christ.

Jesus taught that the “law and the prophets were in effect until John came, since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed.” Jesus went on to insist that the whole of Scripture be maintained: not “one stroke of a letter in the law” could be dropped (Luke 16:16–17). After the resurrection, Jesus explains to disciples on their way to Emmaus how everything written about him in the law, the prophets and the Psalms finds fulfillment in his life, death and resurrection.

This trajectory of the biblical story means that the church needs the whole library from Genesis to Revelation to understand why the world is as it is and what God intends to do about it. For Christians, Jesus is the fulfillment and pinnacle of God’s revelation. When there appears to be movement or tension within the Bible, we take our interpretive cues from Jesus.

Jesus made no comments about handguns or mutual funds, but he said a lot about swords and money that is relevant to violence and economic justice in America. Believers today must distill principles from Scripture and apply them in circumstances that biblical writers could not have imagined. Looking for underlying principles and trajectory means that Bible interpretation often is more complex than simply finding a verse and making it into a universal rule.

Acts 15 suggests a model for interpretation

There is an example in Acts 15 of believers making a major shift in practice when the early church began to receive Gentiles who did not observe traditional Jewish law including circumcision. The modern Western church, dealing with change in the surrounding culture in attitudes toward violence, sexuality and world religions, would do well to consider how early believers processed major change in the first century.
Here is an outline of stages of interpretation and decision-making that happened at Jerusalem according to Acts 15—with possible corresponding circumstances for the Mennonite church in North America today in italics.

1. There was disagreement about the innovation of receiving Gentiles into the church without requiring them to practice circumcision and otherwise adhere to the entire law of Moses (15:1). There is debate in the North American Mennonite church about our historic commitment to nonviolence, to simple living and to traditional understandings of marriage.

2. Leaders of the church at Jerusalem hosted an international and cross-cultural conference for discernment on how to proceed (15:4). Denominational leaders organize discernment processes to receive insight and counsel from innovators and to hear from diverse ethnic groups or theological perspectives. This may include attention to how the global Mennonite church interprets a given matter.

3. There was storytelling and cross-cultural field reports (15:4). The church hears stories from individuals or church groups who have been open to a disputed innovation.

4. Traditionalists cited precedent and wanted to receive Gentiles only if they practiced the entire law of Moses (15:5). The church examines the established stance of Anabaptists through confessions of faith or other documents that reflect wide discernment.

5. There was a lot of conversation and “much debate” (15:6). The Mennonite church provides adequate forum for people of diverse perspectives to speak and be heard.

6. Scripture came into play: “This agrees with the words of the prophets” (15:15). The church considers how a proposed innovation aligns with either consistent principles or the clear trajectory of Scripture.

7. A leader recognized by the church—James, the brother of Jesus—proposed a way forward: “We should not trouble the Gentiles” with the entire burden of Mosaic law (15:19). Congregational, conference and/or denomination-wide leaders articulate a way forward, in accountability to the rest of the church.

8. Those who promoted change received endorsement but nevertheless needed to abide by underlying themes or trajectories of the law of Moses—including rejection of idols, rejection of fornication and rejection of “blood” (possibly a reference to murder; 15:20). If the church opts for significant change, innovators will need to abide by underlying aspects of the traditional understanding that reflect the intent and direction of Scripture.

9. The proposed way forward received approval by the whole church (15:22, 25). Healthy change likely will not simply be top-down, bottom-up or local; it will receive wide discernment and ownership throughout the denomination. This requires yieldedness on the part of all to avoid creating a situation in which either innovators or traditionalists become so entrenched that they hold the entire church hostage.

10. Leaders of the church at Jerusalem took care to have authorized representatives personally interpret new understandings to scattered congregations (15:25). Significant change in practice may generate upheaval and may require relationship-tending and pastoral care as the church puts the new into practice.

11. Despite all efforts to work through change peacefully, there may be lingering tensions (Galatians 2:11–14: after the seemingly peaceful agreement of Acts 15, Peter and Paul have a falling out over the issue of how to relate to Gentiles). Major change on issues such as nonviolence or covenant boundaries will not be—and probably should not be—completely resolved in one generation.

12. The whole process of biblical and ethical discernment in Acts 15 took place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (15:28). The church needs to discern both through discussion and through careful attention to the Holy Spirit.

Acts 15 recounts a story of the church opting for substantial change. There are multiple cases in the New Testament when leaders did not embrace ethical or spiritual innovation—1 Corinthians 5:1–5 regarding sexual innovation, for example, or Jude 8–13 regarding greed and idolatry. In any case, it is significant that change described in Acts 15 came from circumstances of the church in mission. Similarly we should expect that today’s church in mission sometimes will redefine or reconsider traditional understandings. When that happens, Mennonites would do well to consider the thoroughness and care with which major change happened in the early church and similarly draw from a breadth of processes and sources.

Ballast on the ship

In every generation it is possible for the church to veer off course because of currents from surrounding culture or to lose momentum by failing to catch the wind of the Spirit. Forces of nationalism and xenophobia, for example, shift the church in North America toward idolatrous patriotism and militarism. Sometimes subgroups—such as academics, business people, clergy or a particular age cohort—attempt to resolve contested issues by talking among themselves without wider testing by the worshipping community.

Individualism or congregationalism can blind us to our own limited understanding.

When navigating through substantial change in practice or conviction, the church is like a ship in rough waters that needs the ballast of tradition and accountability.

Indispensable to plotting a course on God’s Shalom Arc is deep knowledge of the Bible, interpreted communally by God’s people in mission. All who help set the course need to pray without ceasing, hear from the wider church and rely on the empowering wind of the Holy Spirit.

J. Nelson Kraybill is lead pastor at Prairie Street Mennonite Church in Elkhart, Ind., and president-elect of Mennonite World Conference.