This 13-part series of classes has been many years in the making. About 25 years ago I began in earnest to examine the features, character and characteristics of the church as it existed in its earliest years. As I sometimes do, I kept my notes all along the way, and this series of classes is to a large extent the product of those years of on-and-off studying the subject. Several things in my experience contributed to my interest in making this 25-year study which I will mention along the way, and those go much further back.
There may be some difficulty in using the individual parts of this series separately, although viewer are free to do so if it serves their purposes. But to those whose interest is in knowing what the church was like in its earliest years, I recommend starting with Part 1 - Introduction to the Church of the New Testament and proceeding through the parts consecutively.
I have prepared some slides that I used in presenting the series in a classroom setting before adapting it to use as sermons. I have left my cues to advance slides or activate animations in the notes as posted on Sermon Central. If anyone is interested in having the PowerPoint files with the slides, I will be happy to send them. Send me an Email at sam@srmccormick.net and specify what part(s) you are requesting. Be sure that the word “slide” appears in the subject line. It may take me several days to respond, but I will respond to all requests.
THE CHURCH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
OUTLINE OF THE STUDY
I. Introduction
II. The Origin of the Church
III. What is the church?
IV. The First Christians
V. Authority in the First Century Church
VI. Problems in the New Testament Church
VII. How the Church Functioned
A. Introduction to Functions
B. Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers
C. False Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers & Various Gifts and Functions
D. More Gifts and Functions
E. Evangelists, Preachers, and Ministers, Servants and Deacons
F. Pastors, Elders, Bishops, etc.
VIII. How the Church Worshiped
===================================
I. Introduction to the Church of the New Testament
Sometime over 50 years ago, I was with Robin’s parents at their home in Amherst, Texas when a call came in inquiring about the little church in their town. A woman asked, “Is this a loyal Church of Christ?” If I had been asked that question, I suppose I would have answered, “Yes, this is a loyal church,” rather than saying, “No, we are a disloyal church. We are unfaithful and in apostasy.”
But I have often thought about that phone call, and wondered what the woman intended to ask--and what distinction, in her thinking, would have validated the church in Amherst as a “loyal” church. Loyal to whom, or what? To Christ? No church in that town or this town would declare itself disloyal to Christ, although perhaps some would declare that about others. Loyal to some particular method, practice or arrangement of things? Surely she had some beliefs or practices in mind that served as her standard for determining loyalty.
Today, I will ask far more questions than I will attempt to answer, to introduce the difficulties involved in this subject, and why it is so hard, if possible at all, to get agreement on what matters and what doesn’t.
1. What is a “loyal” church? The question contains an implied premise that being faithful and true to something is essential to loyalty What is the premise that determines loyalty?
Some call the church in Smyrna “the loyal church” because it was the one church of the seven written to in Revelation for which no criticism or correction was needed. But we know almost nothing about the church in Smyrna except that
• they were rich--their poverty notwithstanding
• they were slandered by some people in Smyrna who were described as “a synagogue of Satan,”
• persecution was about to begin.
That’s all we know. If that handful of things is true of us, does our compliance with the sterling example of Smyrna make us “the church of the New Testament?”
I found that there is, and has been for a very long time, a belief that “loyalty,”or faithfulness, lies in conforming to the “ancient paths,” which means sticking as closely as possible to the early church’s practices and methods. Since the church had its beginning under the direct instruction, training, and oversight of the apostles, who clearly had the authority to direct the affairs of the churches, the church must have at first been pure in doctrine and practice. Under this doctrine, the early church is believed to be the model, or pattern. Therefore, the more closely we adhere to that “ideal,” the more loyal we are believed to be, and thus more pleasing to God than churches - and the members who populate them - whose practices are less in conformity.
Broadly speaking, I have no problem with that view. However, it does introduce some knotty questions. Under the theory that all the things we see the earliest Christians doing are given the full weight of commandments, and what we fail to see the earliest Christians doing is a negative command, or prohibition of those things, then we must be like them in every particular, or be in violation of those commands and prohibitions.
The tricky question is: how are we to select the things of early Christianity that we ought to emulate or simulate, and which ones, if any, “just happened that way” and don’t matter to us? Or which things were done as they were simply because it was fitting and effective in their time and place? Were any of the things they did a matter of their own preferences and choices? If we could answer those questions to everyone’s satisfaction, we would solve almost all of the problems that have divided the church since its beginning.
A book I read several years ago seemed to assume that the new covenant would be very much like the one given through Moses, rather than--as Jeremiah said--unlike it.
Many churches confidently assert that “we are the New Testament church,” on the strength of strictly adhering to some but not all of the New Testament doctrines and practices. But if we are honest, do they--or do we--have everything right? Do we take into consideration all that we see the New Testament churches doing as described in the sacred record? Do we “get” the most essential facets of the church of the first century, or only some that have caught our eye, while other potentially important aspects are unseen or waved aside as being incidental custom-related factors?
Which New Testament church shall we be like?
Jerusalem? (Are we ready to do what they did at Jerusalem, selling their lands and possessions and having all things common? Shall we meet daily from house to house (no temple here), taking meals together? Shall we have a daily distribution of food, as they did? Shall we, like the Christians in Jerusalem, continue to keep the law of Moses as they did for a lengthy transition period? Can we even look anyone in the eye and say we’re the church of the New Testament if the Jerusalem church is the standard?
Antioch? While it was the same as the Jerusalem church in the essentials, there was friction between Christians in those churches over what those essentials were. Antioch, located in the pagan frontier of Syria, was made up of members whose backgrounds were very different from those in the church at Jerusalem (more on this later). Shall Antioch, with its distinguishing features that caused anxiety in the Jerusalem church, be the model for churches now?
Corinth? Before or after the cleanup of problems with division, misuse of the Lord’s supper, ignoring blatant unrepented sin in the church, over-valuing the practice of tongue-speaking, etc. Do we even know that the corrective actions specified by Paul were ever followed (with the possible exception of the situation with immorality)?
Ephesus? Again, problems. They worked hard and did not tolerate evil men, but had left their first love. Paul told the elders that from their own number men would rise up speaking perverse things and try to draw disciples to themselves, not sparing the flock.
Other churches of Asia? Which shall we be like? Laodicea, Philadelphia, Sardis?
Which church of the New Testament will be our pattern, or will we seek to include all the churches in discovering the New Testament pattern; and
• like those in Berea, who searched the scriptures to see if what they were told was true?
• Or like those in faraway Troas, who give us our only biblical example of meeting on Sunday? (although we have historical sources outside the bible that tell us this was common practices during the apostles’ lives).
Someone may say, “It’s simple. Those things for which the New Testament either explicitly commands, or expresses favor or acceptance for, we should adopt, and those for which disfavor is expressed we should avoid. There is probably merit to this line of thought, but the church has never had an easy time being consistent in sorting out what is essential and what is incidental, so we have trouble distinguishing which examples are incidental, permissible and optional; and which ones are either mandatory or forbidden.
2. Ever since the church was established, there have been changes in the way it operated, some of them minor, others of critical importance. The church began to deviate from its beginning form within a few years. Throughout the years down to the present, reasonable people of good will and wisdom have had honest differences in perception as to whether those changes were in matters that were significant or not. In short, people have always differed in their perception of the New Testament church, and in fact, the New Testament itself, but have not agreed on the importance of their differences. Drifts and reformations have been a part of church life from the beginning.
The church that emerged from the original transaction on the day of Pentecost gradually deviated more and more and became so far afield it was barely recognizable. And yet, for much of the intervening 2000 years, distorted as it was, it was the only church there was.
• Ignatius – likely a student of John the apostle, and definitely a martyr (having been thrown to the wild beasts in the Coliseum in Rome), within the first century advocated a single elder or presbyter over each church, one over each geographic region, and in the end, a single bishop, or pope, over the entire church. It took about 450 years for that scenario to become reality.
• Very early, but at some indistinct time, these bishops appointed assistants, priests, and conferred upon them the right to act in the person of Christ himself in giving sacraments such as administering the Lord’s supper, receiving confessions, and forgiving sins.
• By the third century, the church had adopted a doctrine, or sacrament, of penance as a punishment imposed on penitent believers. The punishment varied with the kind and seriousness of the offences committed. "Doing penance" often involved severe, often public, discipline, which could be both harsh and humiliating but it was considered edifying, giving effectiveness to the person’s repentance. I have actually encountered remnants of this sacrament in the Church of Christ! It cannot be reconciled with Jesus’ story of prodigal son.
• In 380 AD, Christianity, which had been brutally persecuted under the reigns of earlier emperors, was declared the state religion of the Roman empire, and the government of Rome began to exert more power in church affairs.
• In 606 AD, the emperor declared Boniface III, bishop of Rome, to be the “head of the universal church,” or the pope. The word that means “universal,” catholicus in Latin, katholicos in Greek, and catholic in English, were applied to the church over which this individual and his successors were to have dominion. So it came about that the position of pope was secured based on its appointment by the civil authority of the emperor, while church doctrine insisted that the pope was, and is, the successor to Peter as head of the apostles, and therefore, the church.
• In the middle ages, “indulgences” were sold (purchased absolution from sins) to raise money for building projects including churches, hospitals, leper colonies, schools, roads, and bridges. Indulgences also became a way for church rulers to fund extravagant projects, such as crusades and cathedrals. Abuses were rampant.
• By the 10th and 11th centuries, huge numbers of Jewish men and women were slaughtered by the church in the name of Christianity. These campaigns were called “crusades.” The church attempted to advance Christianity by the sword, absolutely out of sync with the character with the church Christ built.
• In the Spanish inquisition in the 16th century, people judged to be heretics were tortured and put to death by being burned at the stake and in other horrible ways, by what was then generally recognized as “the church.”
Paul the apostle saw all of this coming. He predicted in his first letter to Timothy (4:1-3) where he wrote that there was to be a “falling away,” from the faith, and the second letter to the Thessalonians (2:3-4) who worried that the day of the Lord had already come. Paul told them that it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
3. Along the way, some noble leaders within the church saw that it was terribly astray. There have been numerous reformer, especially in the last 800 years, who took notice that the church was hardly recognizable as the church described in the New Testament, and pushed for reform.
4. Some very early attempts to reform the church to its original spirituality and function set those reformers at odds with the prevailing “powers that be” within the church. To their credit, some of the earliest popes sought reforms.
Francis of Assisi (1182-1226), usually called “St. Francis of Assisi,” an Italian friar and preacher, consecrated himself to poverty to try to regain the spirituality the church had lost. At about the same time, Thomas Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, sought to combat some errors in his time.
Both men were cutting against the grain for their time, and were at odds with the church, but later came to be recognized as contributing much to the understanding of true Christianity.
The Protestant reformation. Some leaders were:
• John Wycliff (1329-1384), a teacher at Oxford, was the first translator of the Bible into English. He is sometimes called the “morning star of the protestant reformation,” fiercely opposed much of what the church had become in 1300 years. He opposed the formal clergy as it then existed, and denied that the pope had any authority. Obviously, he was seen as a dissident. He died of a stroke, but in 1428 he was posthumously condemned as a heretic. The church ordered his body exhumed, burned, and the ashes thrown into the Swift River.
• Martin Luther (1483-1546), a German monk, opposed not only indulgences, but also the authority of church councils, the church’s governing hierarchy, and the sacramental system (baptism, confirmation, eucharist, ordination, reconciliation of penitents, and others)
• William Tyndale (1492-1536) was strangled and his body later burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English, in particular for translating ekklesia into its literal meaning, “congregation,” rather then the Roman ecclesiastical word, “church,” an affront to the Roman church.
These men have made attempts to frame the church in closer conformity with the church of the New Testament. That is what “reform” has almost always been about – back to the New Testament, the original ideal. The reformers ran into opposition, and some of them paid with their lives.
From our modern point of view, their attempts, while well-meaning, were flawed, and fell short of what we might consider a perfect following of the New Testament. Most of them attacked one or two or several aspects of what was then current practice, such as a rigid clergy/laity separation, or exclusion of people judged unworthy from communion.
Some reformers, such as Martin Luther, advanced more comprehensive reforms (95 theses nailed to the church-house door at Wittenberg). Luther was excommunicated by the church and condemned by the emperor as an outlaw.
We owe a lot to these reformers, even if their reforms did not entirely bring the church to its original form.
5. The church’s history has been one of drift and reform, drift and reform, drift and reform with the reformers attempting to foster reformation [reform meaning “form again”] of the church’s corrupted nature and restore New Testament Christianity by returning to its character in early times, and being persecuted and sometimes paying with their lives for upsetting the prevailing status quo (tyranny of the status quo).
This history shows the danger of the gradual: All of the drifts away from the church Jesus built occurred gradually, compounding over many lifetimes. Gradual deterioration was what made it easy for those living at any time to accept. But what Paul saw and forecast in his writings—our scriptures--was a “great falling away,” or apostasy.
The danger applies equally to us. We ought not to treat that which is familiar as sacrosanct and inviolable truth, and to apply our familiar trappings as a measure of divine truth without examining them in the light of the New Testament. Drift occurs when we fail to examine our practices critically.
Each effort at reform and restoration of the church of the New Testament brought along some, but not all, Christians, leaving others unreformed according to the lights of each reformer. So we are left with the vestiges of many “isms” and
“doxy’s,” among them Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Asceticism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Western Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, to name just a handful, each claiming to be the church Jesus built.
“Orthodoxy” means “right belief.” Isn’t it ironic that there are so many conflicting “right beliefs,” or orthodoxies?
Locally, it relates to the churches on Sunnyside Avenue, Highway 550, Westgate, Main St., and all over town, each supposing they have identified the things about the New Testament church that Jesus had in mind when he said, “I will build my church.”
The work of reformers has always sought to remedy defects in the church of their day, either in part or whole, by seeking answers to questions like these:
• What was the church of the first century?
• What did it look like?
• What was important to it?
• What was problematic to it?
• How did it function?
• What were the early church’s functioning roles, and who performed them?
• How did they worship?
• What, or who, guided them in what they did, that now comes under our scrutiny? (includes OT, apostles and their designated emissaries, direct revelations to first century prophets, Holy Spirit)
• What gifts did they possess, and what does that mean?
• If the first century church was pleasing to God, what was it about it that pleased him?
• If the church at large or any congregation departs in any detail from the most strictly applied features of the church we see in the New Testament (and therefore--according to that standard--has flaws), is it still the church, or has it relinquished that identity and become a disloyal church, or no church at all? Has its candlestick been removed, while they still assemble and claim to be the church?
The overarching question today is: “Are we the “church of the New Testament” by being like it in all the ways Jesus cares about, or are we caught in one of the whirlpools left eddying on the edges of Christianity, thinking we have captured the essence of the New Testament church? Or are we just another “ism” or “doxy?”
If we must be like the church was in the New Testament in order to be the church, it serves us well to examine that church to see if we are adhering to the things about it that matter to Jesus, its head. Let me say now that we cannot rightly claim to adhere to all of the forms, methods, and procedures followed by the first Christians. We do not.
True, we baptize believers by immersion; we worship in a way that includes some things they did and we are commanded to, and try to avoid things that are expressly forbidden; we assemble regularly and sing, pray, teach, and have fellowship. We will examine what the New Testament tells us directly about the way the church is to be, and also what we glean from observation of the first century church in operation, whether explicitly commanded or not, to try to figure out what is essential and what is incidental and--though historical--non-essential,.
I am not proposing we re-cast the church in a non-biblical way, or adopt practices that are now objectionable. As far as I can tell, we are not practicing anything that is contrary to the Bible. What I am proposing is that we examine the church of the New Testament in its entirety—not just their worship practices, and decide whether we are, and whether we ought to be, that church—looking beyond forms, methods, and procedures that became customs and traditions early, to the true personality and character of the church of the New Testament.
*Show outline of the study on PowerPoint slide.
(Will have handouts sometimes, but probably not every time)
The New Testament will be our guide in this study. We will talk about historical developments over the time the church has existed, but those considerations, though likely factually correct, will not be our guide. We should not demand that we do or do not do something because history—not the Bible--tells us they did or did not do it.
I will not ask you to believe anything because I say it. But I ask you stay with this series of studies, in which I seek to go beyond a mere recitation and justification of our current customs.
