Is the Early Church Experience Normative?

In his Deeper Thoughts blog, my good friend Arch takes up the issue of the normativity of the early church.  He is interacting with the idea that the early church provides a model of church which should be normative across the centuries.  This is the notion that there is a primitive and pristine era in the past which, if we could recover it, things would be made right.

I'm still young (42 is young isn't it?), but I've witnessed such things many times in my short life.  The charismatic movement is driven by this (that's not a potshot, just an observation) desire to recover the experience of the early church, the house church movement is driven by this, and to some extent the "no-church" movement is driven by this.  Aw heck, I'll admit that there is a good deal of this in the reformed movement, except that with the reformed, the desire is not so much to return to the first century as it is the 16th.   But that's a little different than what Arch is talking about.  He's getting at this idea that there was a pure church in the first century which has been corrupted through the ages.

He interacts with N. T. Wright on this matter, showing that there is no pure, primitive, pristine church of the first century that we can turn to as a model for church today.  He goes on in his post to show how we ought to view and interact with the church of the past, as well as the church of the future.  I've copied and pasted an excerpt from his post below and you can find the rest of it here.

Interaction with N. T. Wright: The New Testament & The People of God

p. 16 ... how(emphasis his) is the history of early Christianity to be (perceived) as relevant for the present day? .... many writers of this and some other centuries have seen the religious experience of the early Christians... as the normative element within Christianity. ... This has the apparent advantage that it enables one to conduct ...study of early Christian religion and theology, with the knowledge that when one has found them one is in touch with the real model of what Christianity is supposed to be like.

There does seem to be certain strain within Evangelical Christianity, throughout the ages, which attributes to the “primitive” church an almost Rousseau/Voltairesque expectation of purity. As these men saw the evils in the world to be the result of the accretions of so-called “civilization”, so Evangelicals often have some sort of sense that the problems in Christianity today are more the result of “Church” being imposed on Christianity than anything else. There is a general longing or wish to return to what is perceived to be an immediacy of Christian experience that is not present in our more distant, modern age.

I believe Wright is correct in criticizing this type of thinking.  He reminds us that any such thinking is necessarily selective in pointing to the Biblical record for choosing what things about the early church are to be normative.

...the process will clearly involve selection...according to a pre-arranged evaluative (emphasis his) scheme.... one is forced to import other criteria from outside, which will enable us to distinguish the ‘right’ sort of early religious experience from the ‘wrong’ sort. (P. 16-17)

I have to agree.  There is very little in the primitive Church in Corinth that we might want in our modern congregations.  Similarly the “foolish Galatians” don’t provide much in the way of example.  There was the perennial problem of “Judaizers” seeking to impose a Jewish identification on the church and there certainly must have been entire congregations which reflected those ideas in their central character.  Of the churches listed in Rev. 2-3 several were seriously in error.  The record we have of the early church then does not appear prima facie to provide a great deal of foundation for understanding their experience or character as “normative” for Christian emulation.

Perhaps what should guide us in thinking about how to think about the early church, is to seek to understand how the Bible presents the record of its history for our inspection.  As an overall perspective the Scriptures seems to treat it pretty much in the same category as it treated ancient Israel.  What we see in the NT is that Scriptures deals with the church in its fallen-ness in every age.  What we do not see in the early church any more than we see in Israel is a “normative” historical example or instantiation such that the church in all subsequent ages should attempt to conform to its model as closely as possible.

Interaction with N. T. Wright: The New Testament & The People of God

p. 16 ... how(emphasis his) is the history of early Christianity to be (perceived) as relevant for the present day? .... many writers of this and some other centuries have seen the religious experience of the early Christians... as the normative element within Christianity. ... This has the apparent advantage that it enables one to conduct ...study of early Christian religion and theology, with the knowledge that when one has found them one is in touch with the real model of what Christianity is supposed to be like.

Comments

[DLE]

Imagine if the Book of Acts were not included in the canon. How different our understanding of the early Church would be! Paul's writings would be far more cryptic and our idea of how the Church would operate would primarily be from the negative examples that he addresses.

But we have Acts and we have it divinely. There is purpose in that. God intended us to see the early Church in action for the very fact that it IS normative. Or as A.W. Tozer said:

"Nowhere in the Word of God is there any text or passage that can be tortured or twisted into teaching that the organic living church of Jesus Christ just prior to His return will not have every right and every power and every obligation that she knew in that early part of the book of Acts."

Nothing could be more normative than Acts. God made it so by its very recording! He intended that we see that early Church and walk in its ways. I can't believe that anyone would even debate that. Asking if the early Church is normative is missing the forest for the trees.

The better question is, "Why are we not like that?" The answer is simple to see if we look at ourselves deeply enough by the power of the Holy Spirit.

But then again, I'm one of those wacky charismatics, so what do I know? ;-)

[Mark Byron]

My dad had a saying-"If you can't be anything else in life, you can always be a bad example." The idea of the early (at least post-Acts) church as a bad example seems a bit off-putting, but there's truth to that; it seemed to get routinely ripped by Paul for its various shortcomings, and John passes on a failing grade for all but one of the seven churches.

We can learn how not to do it, but we can also know how to do it. Note that Paul is talking about regulation (not banishment) of prophetic tongues when he uses "decently and in order" in 1 Corinthians 14; that wouldn't be how a modern Presybeterian would define "decent and in order."

Yes, I'm another "one of those wacky charismatics."

[Michael]

I have often thought about this but never been able to put it to words as well as Arch did. I think that this is another great example of why we need to take the "whole counsel of Scripture" in consideration when developing our ecclesiology. But often instead we are content hang our hats on Acts 2:42 or another single passage to define the church.

[the Foolish Sage]

The desire should not be "how first century can our church be" but rather how biblical can our church be....ther is a difference

[Clive]

I agree with the previous comment.
The Presbyterian and Reformed (and others) have made practice of a Law and Gospel worship liturgy. We don't have any record of the early church doing this or being admonished to do it, but the law and gospel contrast is an obvious theme Paul's letters. In fact, it's a contrast found in the whole of scripture. The reason we institute a law and gospel liturgy in worship is because we view worship as a covenant renewal ceremony wherein we are once again crushed by the weight of the law so that we may again soar on the heights of grace.

[Barry]

I'm not a charismatic, but I tend to agree with Mark Byron. For whatever it's worth, I highly recommend Ajith Fernando's commentary on Acts, which provides a fair and balanced treatment of the text and how those primitive principles apply to the church now. (Ajith, by the way, is the keynote speaker at this year's Bethlehem Baptist Conference for Pastors.)

[Barry]

**CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS POST**
My reference below to agreeing with Mark Byron should have been a reference to agreeing with the first post below, by DLE (Dan Edelen of Cerulean Sanctum). Sorry!

[Dave, the Cubicle Reverend]

But I cannot turn around without seeing some church saying they are based off of a biblical model. Let's face it, we do not know for sure what church was like for them in its' entirety. The church is meant to be:
1)Relational (both between us and God)
2)Scholarship
3)Artistic
4)Spiritual
5)Counter Culter (not like a hippy counter culter but a response to the current culture)

So on and so on. We are the church. We are called to Love God and Love Others. And sadly bringing things back to the original idea will help this.

[David]

While I believe that it's difficult to make normative the practices of the early church, I do think that the beliefs of the early church might have more relevance for us today.

My thinking is that, in general, the closer the proximity to the founding of Christianity, then the more likely the beliefs from that period will reflect the original teachings of the faith.

Obviously we should still practice solid research and bible study to understand the texts, but we should do so with an attentive ear to how our Christian ancestors have dealt with various issues.

There is a growing movement in evangelicalism to pay more attention to ancient theological traditions, and I think this can only benefit the contemporary church's situation.

[stan]

The book of Acts only describes how the early church functioned in the latter part of chapter 2. The rest is an account of the work of the Holy Spirit through the Apostles. To see how the church was to function it is necessary to go to the epistles, especially I Cor., Ephesians and Colossians. It is quite clear that worship was free and open, with minimal influence by robed Reverends, "worship leaders", etc. Leadership was entrusted to men known synonomously as shepherds (poimein), elders (presbuteroi) and overseers (episkopoi) and these were always present in the plural. The "open" Plymouth Brethren are by far the closest to this model. The fact that they don't allow women to participate can be debated as can their dispensationalism, which withholds the excercise of various gifts. They do not allow the giving or use of titles by their leaders. This is in keeping with the Lord's words in Matt. 23. Every "leader" who allows him/herself to attach the appelate "Rev.", "Dr"., "Bishop", etc. to their name can be called into question for disobeying the Lord's clear words. The way the early church was to function is laid out very clearly in Scripture. But our denominations and traditions of men have chosen to ignore it.

[Clive]

Stan, I must take issue. I don’t see how you surmise that worship was “free and open” from I Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians. Actually I do, but the “free and open” was not good, if anything Paul was giving instruction against such things. From I Corinthians it’s clear that he was trying to bring order to chaos and put an end the random nature of their worship services.
As for titles, what are “shepherds”, “elders” and “overseers” but titles given to the church leaders? In Matthew 23 Jesus is not forbidding titles, He’s forbidding granting human leaders the authority that belongs to God. Jesus was rebuking the Scribes and Pharisees and showing how they have exalted themselves only for their own glory. Jesus is telling there us that leaders must be humble.
Now not all elders or overseers have the gift of preaching. So those with the gift of preaching (Like Timothy and Titus) are called to publicly exhort. The gift of exhortation is recognized by the elders, the call to exhort is extended by the elders and the elders must discern the Word that is preached in order to guard the flock. Preaching is a unique calling.
Because the preaching of the Word is the most important part of worship, we have often wrongly elevated exhorters higher than we should. That’s why I’m not a fan of the word “Reverend” so much either – but that word came out of respect for the office of preacher. Paul praises the unique gifts of preachers in Romans 10 and we should too.

[brad]

I teach the early church as prototype or the first revision of God's plan for the church. Much like the 747 being the first long haul, super-jumbo jet. The basic principles of the church's DNA is in the book of ACTS. What in the practices of the early church can we gather about the early church's principles and understanding of who Jesus Christ was (what it means that the Messiah has come) and what His teachings about the Kingdom were and how do we live in them. The result of their faith was that they were effective in growing the church and they remained a morally distinctive community (salt and light). I think this is saying the early church is normative.

My own experience is that most Christians believe this. Some have terrible theology and emphasize the wrong things and the journey becomes ugly. Others "get it" and emphasize the right things and develp into morally beautiful communities. Those who do not try to live this same story as the early church, I think, simply tend to set their sights too low and fail to be truly distinct from the world around us.

[stan]

Clive,
The context of Matt: 23 reveals that Jesus is not rebuking the Pharisees but telling his disciples not to take the titles that they take because we are all brothers. If Jesus forbid the use of "teacher" or "leader", etc. what would he say about "Reverend"? It is very clear in Scripture that only God is worthy of being revered. Jesus is clearly forbidding the use of titles. "Pastor" was listed as a spiritual gift. Elder and overseer were not used as titles but as descriptions of responsibilities. The evolution toward the use of titles came as the church moved toward catholicism. I don't know how much more clear the Lord's words could be.
Compared to today's worship, Corinth was free and open. Paul was not correcting the form but the misuse of two specific gifts. In 1 Cor. 14:26 it is clear that he expected a wide range of participation. The gifts of tongues and prophecy were to be exercised in a proscribed manner.

[Tony G]

“There is very little in the primitive Church in Corinth that we might want in our modern congregations"

True, but we find it none the less as it exists throughout Christendom.

When thinking of the religious experience of early Christians I think of a widespread curiosity and excitement of learning the truth and hope of Jesus Christ. So if we are talking of the spirit of enthusiasm and the willingness to worship and spread the gospel without the trappings of ecclesia, then I believe that this experience could, or should be, the normative element within Christianity.

When speaking of church government and order, to imply that that titles, positions, and what ultimately became the Catholic church is normative and should be used as a template in today’s church structure is wrong. To imply that the early church was original in structure or was the beginning of something new is naive. The first converts were not really converts at all but Jews that came across a fork in the road and chose truth. When it comes to forming order and government the apostles did what they knew. To say that the church structure of today has roots more to Judaism, from the Great Synagogue to the fall of the Temple, than to some spontaneous formation would be closer to the truth. What we have today has much to do with cultural traditions of the Jews and synagogue structure. Whether speaking of church councils, presbyters, internal politics, women, etc., the apostles, especially Paul, essentially set up synagogues. To them they did not cease being Jews because the knew the Truth. The problem with “Judaizers” filtered into the church in more ways than doctrine. I think that many that converted found it hard to keep the religion that they were raised with, culminating generations and generations of Judaism, out of their new faith.

So as to "normative", I believe the first century should be used as a template just as new foundations are beginning in Central and South America, Asia, and throughout the world. Just as the Jews added thousands of laws and ordinances as time went by, from Moses to Malachi to Caiaphas, the Christian church has done the same. We see evidence of this not just in the Catholic Church but even since the reformation. Sometimes it is hard not to see it in our own congregations as the energy fades and we move from church planting to parking lot attendants.

Could it be possible to look back to our own personal beginnings in the faith, our first time we realized that we were naked and were ashamed for the sin we embraced, when Jesus took all of that away and each of us has begun our new walk. This normative experience transcends time. In the first century it was just that the Truth spread so rapidly among the world that the energy of Pentecost overcame the tendencies to fall back and conform this new felling into the old shell of a religion.

[Clive]

Stan,
I won't drag this out beyond this comment.
We disagree on the context and intent of Matt. 23. I will say that if a man insists on recognition of his position in the church and considers himself the absolute authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice then yes, he is in direct disobedience of Matt. 23. (On this matter, the last word is yours)

For all to think about:
Have we considered that the early church did not have a closed canon? That they didn't have the New Testament? If I follow that through - the implication is that, because they were without the benefit of the whole of Scripture, God gave the early Church spiritual gifts that are no longer needed here in the days of a complete canon? So perhaps practices were a bit different then to accommodate that void and therefore not normative today-? Is the complete canon what Paul was referring to when he said "..when perfection comes"--? (I Cor. 13). You tell me, just throwin it out there.

[apostlejohn]

"He interacts with N. T. Wright on this matter, showing that there is no pure, primitive, pristine church of the first century that we can turn to as a model for church today."

I agree. It seems Christianity is always being invited to ignore 2000 years of the Holy Spirit's work.

[Diane R]

I've studied church organizational structures for a long time now--especially in the first century; after the apostles died; at the Reformation; and today's.
I keep coming back to (and by the way, I agree with most of what stan wrote) to the organizational structure in the early church as the best one to follow.
It's true that the church's structure was an evolving one, but it probably reached it's zenith in the late 1st-early 2nd century.
The structure was there although it certainly was flexible, not rigid. That came much later.

The presbytery model seems to be the correct one as opposed to the episcopate one.
I am one of those crazy Charismatics -well actually more of a neo-Pentecostal - and it saddens me to see the episcpate model being used in almost all Charismatic and Pentecostal chruches--that is, the pastor OVER the elders.
So, it might not be surprising that I am now a member of a Presbyterian church, my main motivation being the structure is safer both personally, emotionally and theologically IMO.

[stan]

Clive,
Thanks for the good interaction. A friend of mine posed some of these questions to one of our Bible college profs years ago. His reply was that the church has "evolved" in its governmental structure and worship service activities. I would argue that he was wrong and not being faithful to the biblical texts. You will note that in the I Cor. 14:26 passage that Paul mentions the word "each" in describing the gathering of the saints in worship. I don't think that anyone can argue that the spectator sport that is morning worship in our churches comes close to approximating what Paul called for in Corinth. He was directing that everyone come ready to participate and specifically use their spiritual gifts in contrast to the one or two, who use their gifts now. As I mentioned before, the Plymouth Brethren follow this model and also follow the cessationist argument regarding gifts. Unfortunately, they have focused on their method and their dispensationalism to the point that most of them have had their candle light go out, just as was promised by the Lord with regard to Ephesus. They key is for wise elders to gently enforce the few but clear directives, which Paul laid out. The Holy Spirit knows which gifts are still operative and which are not.

[Dustin]

I tend to avoid anything that establishes a universal model for practicing Christianity. Should we learn from the early churches? Absolutely. Ultimately though, we should seek direction from God, not man. I fear that too often we look to man as our model. Instead, we should seek to understand their perception of God and how it influenced their "model." How did the early churches' understanding of God intersect with their culture to produce their model?

We worship the same God today, but intersect with a different culture. God never changes, but His methods of engaging may.

• Burning bush on a mountaintop
• Pillar of fire/cloud
• Presence in the Holy of Holies of the Temple
• Whisper in the cleft of the Most High
• Spirit like a dove
• Incarnation of Christ
• Tongues of fire

If we want to go back to origins, maybe we should be seeking God in gardens or on mountainsides. Otherwise, maybe we should recognize that the specific model isn't so much flawed as the idea that there would be a model in the first place.

[Clive]

Thank you Stan. You gave me much to ponder, and much to study. I'm now gonna find a quiet corner and go "Berean."

And thank you David for posting and for providing this forum, get well soon.

Dustin,
To what extent should our culture shape our worship? And, is God still changing the way he "engages" us? When was the last change?

And I'll take my answers off the air...

[Dustin]

Clive,

Culture doesn't "shape" our worship. That's not the point.

The point is we need to know who our God is and how we can communicate that to the culture around us. Jesus did that. We need to understand the unique call he places on our life. Jesus did. Sometimes in order to do this, we have to go against the grain of what others say is "God's way" of doing things. Jesus did.

The problem with following models or "waves of the Spirit" is that we focus our eyes on men and their response to God instead of on God and our response to him (isn't THAT worship?).

When was the last time God changed the way He engaged people? The last time a person was born. I believe He "shapes" worship with each person that is created. We worship as we live our lives according to His purpose, responding in a way that acknowledges our God. I worship God by being (acting out my life as an expression of who I am in Christ) who He created me to be.

[Clive]

Dustin,
Your list of God “engaging” people had burning bush, the incarnation, tongues of fire, etc. So I thought you were going to say that God continues to engage us in theophanies or special visible outpourings today or something like that. But you didn't.

[Magdalena]

Have any of you read the early Church Fathers? Do any of you know the history of the how the Liturgy of St. James came to be used? What did St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom do? Did they make up a liturgy out of whole cloth that was the standard for worship for 700 years?

[Clive]

Magdalena,
There is no real evidence that the liturgy of St. James dates back to the first century or that St. James (half brother of Jesus) had anything to do with it. Besides, the liturgy evokes imagery from Jewish temple worship and the sacrificial system, things abolished in the new covenant in Christ.

[Barry]

Clive,
I enjoyed reading your discussion with Stan. I want to reiterate what I said earlier in this discussion (that I'm not charismatic), to dismiss the suspicion of bias in the comment I'm about to make. I think there are many reasons to believe that early church worship was participatory, and probably should still be, or else many of Paul's arguments regarding the very nature of the body of Christ lose their significance.

But my purpose in addressing this comment to you is in reference to your question: Is the complete canon what Paul was referring to when he said "..when perfection comes"--? (I Cor. 13).

John Piper addresses that question in particular, and the issue of the continuance of spiritual gifts in general, in part 3 of this article:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/spiritual_gifts/signs_wonders.html

I highly recommend it as sound exegesis.