Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    Which Early Church Are You Talking About?!

    Bookmark and Share

    They devoted themselves to the apostles? teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (NIV)

    Sounds great, doesn't it? Teaching, prayer, communion, real fellowship, sharing possessions, signs and wonders, people becoming Christians. How simple it all was. "How lovely! If only...", we like to think. Just get rid of the denominations, the structures, the buildings and we could get back to that New Testament idyll: the church as Jesus intended it to be.

    The trouble is, I have to zoom out a bit and try and get the broader picture. (It is a habit I picked up from years of good Bible teaching in various places.) Now, what early church do we mean? Do we mean
    • the early church in Jerusalem which tried to persuade gentiles to be circumcised and effectively become Jews before they could be called Christians?
    • The church in Galatia with a similar problem?
    • The church in Colossae with the Jesus-plus gospel?
    • The church in Corinth with their factions? their failure to recognise apostolic authority? their incestuous sexual relationships?
    • The churches which received John's letters which were beset by pre-gnostic docetic heresies?
    • The wider early church with itinerant false teachers (wolves in sheep's clothing)? which they had to deal with at a time when no church had yet received all of the New Tesament revelation?
    • etc, etc"

    Makes some of our 'seeker-sensitive', 'purpose-driven', 'megachurch' models seem not so bad afterall.  smile

    FOR DISCUSSION:  Is this the church we mean? Do we really want to go back to all that?  What say you?

    Great post from Brit Stephen Dancer from his blog.  This very subject has often come up on this very blog… people that say today’s church needs to get back to its ‘early church roots’.  Stephen writes… "Here’s an ill-thought out rant stimulated by a conversation I had in the car today.  There is much talk these days of getting back to the simplicity of being like the church found in the New Testament. If you were to ask an advocate of this view, they might turn, in a rather dreamy eyed fashion, to Acts 2:42…

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. Stephen on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Todd,


      Wow! That’s the first time I have been quoted in full! Thanks for the plug…

    2. Ricky on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Stephen said:


      “Now, what early church do we mean? Do we mean:



      the early church in Jerusalem which tried to persuade gentiles to be circumcised and effectively become Jews before they could be called Christians?”

      Hey, Stephen, apparently the so-called “good Bible-teaching” you picked up either wasn’t as good as you think or maybe you forgot it somewhere.


      You are being extremely disingenuous when you imply that the early Church in Jerusalem, as a whole, tried to persuade Christians to become circumcised and to follow the Law. 


      You should know that it was SOME who tried to establish that practice but it was quickly stopped in its tracks by Paul, James, et al, who realized that in attempting to do so, they were trying to apply something (i.e., circumcision, Law) that they themselves were unable to bear/keep.


      Read it, Stephen, it’s in the Book of Acts.

       

      Stephen again:



      “The church in Galatia with a similar problem?


      The church in Colossae with the Jesus-plus gospel?


      The church in Corinth with their factions? their failure to recognise apostolic authority? Their incestuous sexual relationships?


      The churches which received John’s letters which were beset by pre-gnostic docetic heresies?


      The wider early church with itinerant false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing)? which they had to deal with at a time when no church had yet received all of the New Tesament revelation?

       

      etc, etc”


      That’s right, that Early Church!!!


      The vast difference, Stephen, is that instead of a make-believe position such as “pastor” (you know, the CEO, Big Dog role and title we’ve created in our Western minds), ruling the masses, keeping them in check through rules, regulations, membership requirements, etc., it was the Holy Spirit who ruled and led the Church.  Are you saying He hasn’t done a good job?

       

      The only times that Paul and the other elders involved themselves in the affairs of a local church was when there was false teaching, heresy, etc.  They respected the autonomy of the individual churches who met for the purpose of mutual edification and exhortation and where everyone was encouraged to participate through the expression of their gifts.


      This is so foreign to us today, especially since the superstar professionals do all of the work, as they entertain their congregations, lulling them into a deep apathetic sleep, while increasing their dependence upon The Man (no, not Christ, but the pastor).


      Again, you act as if what you listed was the norm when in fact, it was the exception.  Why do you think that with all of the myriad of problems you claim that plagued the Early Church they were still able to evangelize the world to such an extent that we can only drool with wonder at how they did it?  It certainly wasn’t because of the structured institution that you apparently and lovingly embrace that spends more time and resources on buildings and budgets than on directly helping people.

       

      Additionally, again you misrepresent the truth in implying that in the Corinthian church there were multiple “incestuous sexual relationships” when Paul mentions only ONE that was dealt with the moment he heard of it.


      If you’re going to be a sychophant for the institutionalized church, at least tell the truth.


      Finally, you claim that there were numbers of “itinerant false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing)? which they had to deal with at a time when no church had yet received all of the New Tesament revelation?”

       

      True, there were false teachers that attacked the Early Church against whom the elders painstakingly confronted, but to say that because they didn’t have the full “revelation” of the New Testament is again arrogant and saying that they were not as “righteous” as we who have the bible.


      Maybe, Stephen, because they LIVED the revelation of the New Testament, whereas we can only hope to do so, they didn’t need all of the classes (i.e., “discipleship,” membership, et al), teaching tapes and boring sermons that we are so “blessed”  to have today. 

       

      In fact, since receiving the “full revelation” there have been far more heresies, false teaching and misrepresentation of the Scripture and God’s character than the Early Church could have dreamed of confronting.


      So please, Stephen, stop your character-assassination of the Early Church, the ekklesia of Christ and just admit that we’re far worse off today than they ever came close to being.


      Todd, because you’ll probably delete this post, I also posted it on Stephen’s blog.

    3. Todd Rhoades on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Ricky,


      I didn’t delete your post… but I do wonder… how do you walk around with such a big chip on your shoulder?  http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif


      I think Stephen was pointing out that the Early Church also had it’s issues.  And some big ones at that.

      Man, you’re one sarcastic and angry dude.


      :(


      Todd

       

    4. Eight on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Go Ricky!!  I loved it.

    5. Ricky on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Todd said:


      “I didn’t delete your post… but I do wonder… how do you walk around with such a big chip on your shoulder? http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif


      Thank you for not deleting the post.  As to a “big chip” on my shoulder, I don’t see myself as carrying such around, although I do get riled up when someone swipes at The Church.  Conversely, I don’t give a wit about what many believe is “church.”

      Quote: “I think Stephen was pointing out that the Early Church also had it’s issues. And some big ones at that.


      Man, you’re one sarcastic and angry dude.”


      I think Stephen was doing so in a way that misrepresented the biblical and historical accounts of the Church, as well as its character.


      I remember once in a children’s service we had asked those who had a prayer need to come forward.  One young boy, the son of one of the associate pastors came forward and when asked what he needed prayer for, the boy said, “My parents fight all the time.”

       

      As I knew the pastor since childhood and the fact that he was a man of great honor, I could only be amused at his son’s perception of things and understood that a child’s perception of things too mature to comprehend is mostly skewed to the point where a “disagreement” becomes “fights.”


      It’s the same with many who wish to imply and/or state out loud that the Early Church was, in some way, inferior to what is called “church” today.  Because of false teaching through the generations, their perception (as mine was) has been conditioned to think that we are somehow better and/or more effective than our First Century brothers and sisters, although no one has yet to prove that.

       

      By the way, thanks for posting more balanced threads.

       

    6. Todd Rhoades on Mon, October 03, 2005

      I haven’t heard anyone here saying the church today is better, more advanced, or more biblical than the early church.  I think you’re the first to suggest that anyone thinks we’re superior to those who served with Jesus himself.


      I’m the first to admit that what we call church is a very western version of the early church.  Just as it was here in the 60’s, the 50’s, the 1800’s and earlier.

      But the church today still points to the same person the early church did… Jesus, the Christ.  It has through the ages.  And although she looks different today than ten years ago (or 200 or 2000 years ago) she is still the church.


      It reminds me of one of the last church’s I served in.  People in that church talked about the ‘glory days’ 25 years go.  How they loved the church; the unity; the people coming to Christ; the music; the pastor.  These same people were the ones who stayed through the most intensive time of fighting in that church’s history… a pastor who left in the middle of a service to start a new church; and a split right down the middle… guess what… 25 years ago!  I think some just have a tendency to look back and see how great everything was, when things, in reality, were not all that great.

       

      I think the same goes here.  Especially those who are disillusioned with the church today… they look back and say, ‘OH, if we could just be like the early church’.


      In reality,


      1.  They had their problems too (and they were big ones to live through, I’m sure).

       

      2.  We can’t go back.  It doesn’t mean there aren’t things to learn from that time, but, quite frankly, we just can’t go back.  If you’d like to try to re-create it, go for it.  But don’t think there won’t be problems.  There will.  Because there are still people and sin.

       

      It’s late.  My incoherent thoughts are calling me to sleep.  http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif


      Todd

       

    7. Michael Rew on Mon, October 03, 2005

      I believe churches in America parallel the situation in Corinth, not just from what is in 1 and 2 Corinthians, but what is evident in Acts. We live in a country where we have great religious freedom, much like Corinth had, as the Lord revealed to Paul. But we are factionalized. (One distinction here: Paul, Peter, and Apollos all taught the same doctrine. Different denominations have wildly varying doctrines.) There is much confusion over spiritual gifts, from the rather hidden way it is preached in “The Purpose Driven Life” to the very outspoken way it is pushed in some charismatic circles. There is also much sexual license, even in the Church, as well as debates about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. I do not see, however, any upsurge in excommunication, which Paul advocated for the incestuous.

    8. kd on Mon, October 03, 2005

      The church is the bride of Christ. Won’t we all be surprised at the wedding feast when we find how much we are loved by Him? Spots and all! He knows the way that we take and is also mindful that we are dust and yet He loves us. It’s incredible and mind boggling. Love covers a multitude of sin!Peace.

    9. BeHim on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Bravo Michael Rew!!!  You’re post was very personal and direct.


      I’d like to add on my thoughts:

      [Sounds great, doesn’t it? Teaching, prayer, communion, real fellowship, sharing possessions, signs and wonders, people becoming Christians.]


      Sure.  It’s the same thing the mega churches speak aloud today (except the pastor sharing his possessions and the fact that the “signs and wonders” are evidenced by the “numbers in the church).  Surely you’re not suggesting these things DON’T sound great.

       

      [How simple it all was.]


      Simple huh?  Do you know any pastors who have personally been cut in half?  Hung up side down on a cross?  Beat and thrown in prison?  No.  It took work.  Hard work!  To study in order to stand.  A willingness to stand on Doctrine and Deed even unto death.  I doubt most mega-church pastors could even defend some of the most basic of Sound Doctrines today (say… Sovereignty for example).

       

      [“How lovely! If only…”, we like to think. Just get rid of the denominations,]


      I would suggest that is EXACTLY what Jesus’ final Revelation to the Apostle John is suggesting:  Revelation 3 to the church of Sardis - to get rid of the names.


      [the structures, the buildings and we could get back to that New Testament idyll: the church as Jesus intended it to be.]


      Do you mock Jesus?  Sure sounds like your mocking Him???  Imagine how much more unity there would be on Sound Doctrine when it would be easy to pick off a false teacher and keep him from “structuring” it his way.  Imagine how much more money would be available to feed the poor, care for the widows and orphans without the big buildings with brand new everything gadgets we can get.  What DID Jesus intend the Church to be?  Salt. Light. Love. Joy. Hope. Peace.

       

      As it stands now, there seems to be a glimmer of light, taste of salt, effection for Love, many joys, predicated hope (if I’m happy I have hope), and generalized peace.  Many works which can be attributed effeciently to; the natural man.


      [The trouble is,]


      “”“”” I “”“”“


      True!


      [have to zoom out a bit and try and get the broader picture.]

       

      Which picture would this be?  The humanist picture?  Or the universalist picture?  The hedonistic picture?  The epicurean picture?  The my picture or his picture or their picture?  Or is it THE Scriptural picture???


      [(It is a habit I picked up from years of good Bible teaching in various places.)]

       

      To and fro from one doctrine to the next; from one liberal view to another.


      [Now, what early church do we mean? Do we mean]


      Right, the early church you want to see?  Or the early Church actually testified to in the hmmm.  Scripture!


      [the early church in Jerusalem which tried to persuade gentiles to be circumcised and effectively become Jews before they could be called Christians?]

       

      Is this what you’re suggesting?  Why do you assume I would suggest this?  It is contrary to Scripture.  Are you suggesting that those that hope for a revival to return to the early church are doing so against Scripture?


      [The church in Galatia with a similar problem?]


      No.  Don’t return to the early church that had problems but rather the early church that was pursuing righteousness and standing against such things in not only Galatia or Jerusalem but in the church in Rome, Thesolenica, etc.

       

      [The church in Colossae with the Jesus-plus gospel?]


      Again, are you suggesting that those who hope for a revival to return to the early church are doing so with a teaching of works plus faith Doctrine?  This again is against Scripture.  It sounds like your trying to suggest we all return to these churches because that’s what they were.  No we want to return to the church that spoke against such things.  To the teachings of Paul, John, James, etc.  Today we return to the teachings of Max Lucado, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, etc.  and call these things “growing in the Lord”.

       

      [The church in Corinth with their factions? their failure to recognise apostolic authority? their incestuous sexual relationships?]


      Hmmm.  Doesn’t it sound like today?  The hundreds and thousands of factions inside the Baptists and other churches.  The failure of pastors willing to submit to any authority believing they can start a church anywhere and teach whatever they feel led to teach.  The 1 out of every 2 male parishoners and 1 out of every 3 male pastors who struggle with ###########.


      [The churches which received John’s letters which were beset by pre-gnostic docetic heresies?]

       

      No, I’m not suggesting we return to this but to the ones who stood against such things, as we are already there.  The churches today are filled with gnostics, agnostics, humanists, etc.


      The wider early church with itinerant false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing)? which they had to deal with at a time when no church had yet received all of the New Tesament revelation?


      etc, etc”


      Most suggest we return to the early church that was willing to stand against all heracies no matter what the cost.  It sounds like you’re suggesting we return to the churches that had problems.  I think we’re already IN the churches of Corinth, Galatia, Colosa, etc.  These things are in the pews and worse pulpits already.  We need to return to the early church that stood up and said no… let these people who teach another Gospel be accursed.  Let those who live ungodly be removed from the assembly.

    10. Ricky on Mon, October 03, 2005

      Todd:


      “I think some just have a tendency to look back and see how great everything was, when things, in reality, were not all that great.”


      Sorry Todd, but 3,000 being added in one day and disciples (not spectators) being added daily is a far cry from where we find ourselves today.


      I suppose, though, that one of the biggest differences is the sense of awe that was felt EVERY time the Early Church met.  There was spontaneity, joy, revelation, testimonies, gifts in operation, and a Godly fear of it all.  It was this same awe that both captivated the surrounding community as well as drew them to Christ.

      Why?  Was it because of the great expositional teaching or preaching?  Was it because of the way the worship leader led the choir in song?  Was it the comfortable seats that carefully cradled the collective tushes of the congregation?


      NO!


      It was because each one had a psalm, hymn and a spiritual song AND the encouragement to share what the Lord had placed in their hearts.

       

      Today, there is no sense of wonderment, no spontaneity and certainly no encouragement for others to openly share their giftings. 


      Saddest of all, there is no longer that awe, that Godly fear of wanting to know and yet fearing to experience Christ Himself in the midst.


      True, today’s “church” does stumble into doing some good, but nowhere near the impact the Early Church did.  I long for the day, and it is coming, when droves of believers will leave the buildings, the budgets, the professionals to find Christ outside the walls.


      And find Him they will.

    11. Todd Rhoades on Tue, October 04, 2005

      BeHim & Ricky,


      I’m about done on this one… BeHim:


      1.  You have too much time on your hands!


      2.  You read too much into others are saying!

      Anyway, let’s rip another brother to shreds so we can prove our point.  Nice.  (Sorry, Stephen.)  Nice to have you both back… time to turn the comment protection back on.


      Ricky:


      Seems to me some want it both ways:  Applauding 3,000 added daily in the early church; then bemoaning churches we talk of here who baptize 400 new believers on a weekend as an evil meniacal megachurch that sometimes is able to stumble into doing some good (by accident, if they’re lucky).

       

      Whatever.


      Todd

       

    12. David on Tue, October 04, 2005

      Todd,  et al,


      I too am always fascinated when pastors advocate returning to the early church….I also think the dream is there, but reality is not….for instance, I know this will upset some folks, but if my reading of some of the early church fathers is right, baptism was done either in the nude or nearly nude….in fact that was one of the signiture purposes of deaconesses….


      And after the VERY EARLY first century church (ie by the end of the 1st century), baptisms were done only on Easter morning after a VERY lengthy catechism…(something most of our missionaries have practiced for years - the lengthy catechism part-helping people learn how to change from their idolatry and paganism to life in Christ….not far from good ole 21st century USA).

      And in fact, I think a real study of early church history will show that every one of the current theologies of the Lord’s Supper for instance (memorial ordinance, transubstantiation, Presence of Christ, etc. ) were present in one of the early church theologians….not to mention the disagreement by church leaders in various parts of the then known world over ritual, penance or repentance, infant baptism vs believers baptism…..the list goes on and on….


      There is little doubt that the “early” church was the foster ground for all of these theological principles and not the 15th century Roman Catholic Church and the subsequent Protestant Reforamation…..


      And lest we think there were not “denominations”.....may I remind you that among others, we have identified historically the different churches - the Antiochian church, the Syrian church, the Alexandrian church, the Roman church….and that’s only a few….and all of them differed not in location but in points of theology and emphasis….they were NOT a unified church, despite that fact that we like to think so…...


      Maybe there is a real validity in being careful what we wish for—-“returning to the early church” is not exactly the most useful vision we can have….there were both strengths and weaknesses in the “early church”....let’s just be sure we keep the things that were good, but be careful what we wish for….we just might get it…...

    13. pjlr on Tue, October 04, 2005

      Todd,


      I don’t think BeHIm and Ricky have crossed the threshold.  They believe what they are saying and although they are saying it strongly, they have not used abusive language.  BTW, I only slightly agree with them.


      Here is my take. It will sound hopelessly like someone trying to find the middle ground.  But Jesus did say, “Blessed are the peacemaker.” http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif

      The early church had some great things going for it and it had some issues.  My understanding of the Epistles is that each one of them was written precisely because they had problems.


      The present day church can desire the good things the early church experienced and address the modern manifestations of the old problems with apostolic teaching and authority.


      We take off the rose colored glasses that make us see the past better than it was and don the clear glasses with the right prescription that will allow us to see the present day church as it is.  No different in many ways than the early church.  No better, no worse.

       

      As old sage put it, “The church is like the Ark.  Sometimes it doesn’t smell all that good, but it’s the only thing floating that will assure us a safe arrival.”

       

    14. Jade on Tue, October 04, 2005

      Do you not think with as many churches as we have today, that we are not getting more converts today than in Acts?  We have gone to more places in the world than Apostle Paul ever thought about.  Quoting the three thousand number does not necessarily impress me.  It does impress me put in to context.  With the audience He was speaking to, and it was in one day.  However if you would like to go back to the church of Acts I hope you don’t mind fearing daily for your life.  Or worshiping in secret from time to time.  Now some places still face persecution, but in America I don’t think we must fear for our life for worshiping our Father, or believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

      Having said all that, there is something I feel the Acts church had and did that we don’t today.  They really served one another and communed with one another.  That is the area we need to work on.  Being a Christian comes with some responsiblities.  We are to serve each other.  Regular church goers seem to have a “give me” kind of attitude.  Is this just me or do others agree?

    15. Steve Burks on Tue, October 04, 2005

      I don’t think that the people who want to go back to the ancient days, so to speak, mean what the article sugggests they mean. At least not all of them.


      When I think “church,” I’m not thinking of the people who willfully screw up, or the body of improperly motivated, self-interested, political opportunists who have exploited Christianity since 30 A.D.


      I understand that the correct definition of “church” is the body of redeemed believers in Jesus Christ, a worldwide network of “online” assets, directed by the Holy Spirit. But people don’t always mean that when they use the word. Some mean building (mostly), and in the case of some of those backward-looking disillusioned, whom the article critiques, pre-Constantinian Christianity. The system that existed before the cross became a symbol of Roman conquest, Mary became an idol, wars became “just,” and - flash forward -  pastors became CEOs, deacons became the Secret Service, revenue started masquerading as “love offerings” for IRS-compliance purposes, pulpits became marketing platforms for self-help authors, and congregations became political capital.

      In this light, the point of view advanced here strikes me as a thinly veiled pro-megachurch stance and a dismissal of what is essentially a truthful observation: Christianity, now known and administered as an “industry” - just another widget whose Founder is regarded as some passive chairman emeritus - has gotten out of hand, the misuse of biblical terms like “church” notwithstanding.


      Is the author suggesting, “People in the church have always been corrupt, therefore there’s nothing wrong with the way it functions now?”

       

    16. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors