John Mark Hicks Responds to Truth

In February 2024, Truth Magazine published an issue entitled “Progressive Christianity”, in which several authors selected by editor Mark Mayberry (incl. Steve Wolfgang, Bruce Reeves, Jeff Wilson and others) specifically addressed several of the writings of John Mark Hicks, a retired Professor of Theology at Lipscomb University and author of several books (“Searching for the Pattern”, “Come to the Table”, “Women Serving God”, etc.) which have caused more than a stir among brethren. These authors together spoke against several of the conclusions promoted by these works which, as Wolfgang put it, “target those who see things as he once did”[1] [i.e. brethren who derive their authority solely from the commands, examples, and necessary inferences in scripture – ks]. The issue spoke ably and frankly against the manifold distortions introduced by those who would substitute a “theological hermeneutic” for one based on God’s repeated pattern in scripture of clearly communicating what He wants from His people.

On May 18th, 2025, Hicks responded.

In a post on his blog entitled “Searching for the Pattern: A Response to the Feb. 2024 Issue of Truth Magazine”, Hicks provided answers to nine “Concerns” that had been raised in reference to his hermeneutical approach to scripture. This article focuses on Hicks’ response to Concern #1: “Did I privilege “feelings over the often-challenging clarity of scripture” (Truth Magazine, pg. 85)?

But first, some context: In his book, Searching for the Pattern, Hicks describes a conversation with a college roommate which served as the catalyst for his rejection of what he calls the “blueprint hermeneutic”. After his roommate had argued from scripture that local congregations are limited in their benevolent scope to their own members, Hicks wrote:

“On the one hand, it appeared that a rigorous application warranted the conclusion. If Acts and the Epistles contain an exclusive pattern for the work of the church, and that blueprint specifies poor saints with no other command, example, or necessary inference that the church helped others from its common funds, then it seemed that God restricted the use of congregational funds to helping only Christians…

On the other hand, that conclusion did not sit well with me. Something gnawed at me. It was as if I felt that can’t be right. And yet I knew that the heart is deceitful above all things, and I could not trust my feelings when it came to what the Bible taught. What the Bible said was true whether I like it or not. Nevertheless, something seemed amiss.” (pg. 63)

“As I mentioned earlier, the conclusion that the church may only help Christians did not sit well with my gut. I recognized we cannot depend on our guts; we are fickle creatures with easily deceived hearts. At the same time, growing up in a Christian family, I was nurtured by the story of God’s love in Scripture from an early age.” (pg. 88)

In the Truth article Wolfgang noted that Hicks’ reaction to sound teaching on benevolence centered on his “gut” reaction to the teaching and favored “sentimentality and emotionalism over what one acknowledges to be biblical teaching”[2].

In self-defense, Hicks sought to validate his “gut” response in this fashion:

“My “gut,” however, was not a feeling untethered to the biblical text and its narrative. On the contrary, my “gut” was shaped by the narrative itself, which I explained in the book (pp. 89-90). It was a theological intuition grounded in my formation by the story of God I learned in Sunday school, communal prayers, reading the Bible, listening to my father’s preaching, and singing the hymns of the church. It was a “gut” formed by faith and the teaching of Scripture. It was, I think, a well-informed and well-formed gut. It was not emotionalism.

The choice was never between feeling and Scripture, but between a story-formed understanding based on Scripture and a humanly constructed hermeneutic with a grid for determining authoritative practices that concluded God’s people ought not to share from their church treasury with non-Christians. While the blueprint patternist hermeneutic with its specific (and complicated) use of commands, examples, and inferences seemingly led to a non-institutional conclusion, I believed that conclusion rendered the method (not Scripture) suspect and misguided. Notice “my gut” responded to the method that generated a specific teaching, not the teaching of Scripture itself.””

Hicks appeals to his “theological intuition” as the basis for his response to and rejection of the “blueprint patternist hermeneutic”. In short, the conclusion reached didn’t feel in keeping with what he had learned about God in classes, prayers, sermons, and songs, or what he understood to be the “grand narrative of scripture”[3], and thus he then began to doubt the logical approach itself. He plainly states that this “gut” feeling was tethered to the biblical text and something else, shaped by another influence besides the text.

We do well to remember that there is a difference between scripture and commentary, between what the Bible says and what we say it says. One is authoritative, the other is not. One is divinely inspired, the other is not. One is objective, the other subjective. Go back through the above quotations and note the emphasis: “the biblical text and its narrative… the story of God… the story of God’s love… the narrative itself… the broad sweep of scripture itself… a story-formed understanding based on Scripture... the teaching of Scripture itself.” It is fascinating that one who rails against a “patternist hermeneutic” would exhibit such a consistent authoritative pattern in his own thinking.

Repeatedly, Hicks appeals to a new source of authority: The Narrative of Scripture. This authority is founded upon what he perceives the message of scripture to be, which (in the case of congregational benevolence) he has decided contrasts with the logical conclusions of the text. It is noteworthy that Hicks recognizes the distinction between biblical fact and subjective feeling yet has chosen to side with interpretation based on the “story of God” versus sound biblical interpretation and its conclusions.

At the end of the post, Hicks makes his allegiance to this new authority even more explicit:

“A hermeneutic that leads to the conclusion that the corporate body of Christ cannot share their resources with a poor unbeliever, in my estimation, must be flawed because it is so counter to imitating the God who loves and gives to all people. That is not an emotional conclusion, but a reasoned one based on the narrative of Scripture.

First, where is this “narrative of Scripture” (that exists outside of and overrules the biblical text) that we can all consult and thereby arrive at a unified conclusion concerning the Scriptures? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that text were provided to us? But let’s assume for a moment that it was, and we had the “Narrative of Scripture” before us in black and white: What hinders us from generating a “well-formed” “narrative” based on our experience of what the “Narrative of Scripture” teaches? This quickly gets ridiculous, but why? If we are willing to appeal to any authority higher than the text of scripture, there is nothing restraining us from doing so again.

Second, Hicks claims he is not abandoning scripture, merely a “humanly constructed hermeneutic”. In what other sphere is it permissible to throw out the basic principles of communication because we disagree with what is communicated, or logic because of the inevitable conclusion it reaches? Moyer puts it well:

“Regardless of which position we take, the authority of the text must be key. Why? Because it is the revelation of God's mind. The only other option is to invent our own doctrines, and then where are we? We may disagree with each other on exactly what the text teaches, but there is absolutely no basis for unity when we give up the authority of the text. "It is written" needs to be the appeal. Without it, we will wallow in self-willed authority with no foundation for anything other than our own desires serving as the standard.” [4]

Abandoning the “blueprint patternist hermeneutic” because it reaches conclusions that are personally distasteful is ultimately rejecting God’s manner of communication when we all employ daily. Paul recognized that some would not “endure sound teaching” and instead turn elsewhere to “suit their own passions” (2 Tim. 4.3). The problem would not be in communication nor conclusion, but rather in reception, acceptance, and submission. As before, so again.

Third, appealing to an authority higher than the text of scripture is not a novel approach. In his article in Truth, Wolfgang quotes from an 1893 article in the Christian Standard (influential among the Disciples of Christ) which demonstrates that this sort of appeal had been made long ago: “A principle may set aside an apostolic precept. It may brush aside an apostolic decree. We do that constantly. We follow the apostolic example whenever we like it; when we do not, we depart from it.”[5] Setting aside logical conclusions drawn from the words of scripture in favor of assertions born from a generalized, non-specific, and highly-subjective “narrative of scripture” is simply appealing to a different authority.

Finally, Hicks appeal to the “grand narrative of scripture” fails the test of interpreting God’s word accurately even when the conclusion seems to contradict God’s overall narrative. Let us apply Hick’s “gut” test to Abraham, whose faith the Hebrew writer described in this way: “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’” (Heb. 11.17-18).

According to Hicks’ appeal to “narrative” authority, Abraham should have been able to reject God’s words, should he not? Surely by the time Abraham converses with God in Genesis 22 it had been made plain to him that human sacrifice was abhorrent to God. Noah seems to have understood as much in Gen. 8.20 in his decision to offer “some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird”, which God accepted. Unless we are to conclude that human sacrifice was at least overlooked by God (which later passages will indicate most strongly otherwise: Lev. 18.21; Deut. 12.31; Ps. 106.37-38), God’s command in Genesis 22.2 to sacrifice Isaac would have seemed diametrically opposed to the overarching narrative which GOD HIMSELF had spoken to Abraham: His offspring would bless the nations! Perhaps Abraham should have rejected the specific hermeneutic that would have regarded God’s plainly stated command as binding and therefore authoritative!

But what did Abraham do? He didn’t allow the “narrative” to dissuade Him from the logical conclusion of what God had said. There was no way around it: Isaac had to die, and so Abraham set about doing as God had said. Until the point when God stopped him, Abraham submitted to God’s word. Abraham was prepared to carry out what God had revealed even when it contradicted everything he knew about God to that point.

May we respond to truth as Abraham did.

References

[1] Steve Wolfgang, “Progressive ‘Christianity’ #1: Progressive Christianity Today”, Truth Magazine, Feb. 2004, pg. 84)

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://johnmarkhicks.com/2025/05/18/searching-for-the-pattern-a-response-to-the-february-2024-issue-of-truth-magazine/

[4] Doy Moyer, https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/it-is-written-reflections-on-authority-ceni-and-grace/

[5] George T. Smith, “No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches,” Christian Standard 29 (October 7, 1893): 798.