"[W]hat was used in the Apostles' times, the scripture fully declareth not, so that making their times the rule and canon of Church polity, ye make a rule which being not possible to be fully known, is as impossible to be kept ... it is the error of the common multitude to consider only what hath been of old, and, if the same were well, to see whether still it continue; if not, to condemn that presently which is, and never to search upon what ground or consideration the change might grow." Richard Hooker

It is not 33AD. We have both Testaments and 2000 years of Christianity to use as our guide. Those who say, "St. Paul said we must do x, therefore let us endeavor to do x," work with only one-half the story and set themselves up for error. Perhaps it is the historian in me, but I believe in the power and majesty of time and what it tells us.

This isn't relativism unhinged from timelessness, far from it. It seeks to combine scripture with the powerful evidence of history to reach firmer conclusions. My priest suggested I kiss my enemies because Scripture said so, it is right in itself, and my example will inspire them to kiss me back. I'd prefer not, first because it suggests all my enemies are alike (which they are not), second because it demands I forget how my enemies have acted in the past (which I won't until they show a willingness to repent), and third because it applies a rigid abstraction to all human activity (which is dangerous and noncontextual).

Scripture uninformed by history is theory uninformed by practice. Scriptura et traditio. I'll stick with Hooker.