|
Restoration, Frivolous Objections to
the Principle
Reprinted from The Carolina Messenger
David R. Pharr
We are committed to the restoration
principle. Churches of Christ exist in the
modern world because of the restoration plea.
Some within this brotherhood, however, are now
rejecting the restoration concept. They are
rejecting the idea that the Scriptures provide a
pattern for the church and that we are bound by
that pattern. This has led to misrepresentations
as to what the restoration principle really is.
For example, some have pointed to the sin that
was in the church at Corinth and smugly asked:
"Which New Testament church do we want to
restore—the one at Corinth?" Such sarcasm is
only sophistry when uttered by educated men, but
it may seem to be a genuine objection to those
who are "unlearned and unstable." Reasonable and
informed brethren never imagined that the
restoration meant adopting the faults and
failures of first century members.
We were disturbed by a bulletin article which
suggested that we really should not want a restoration
of the first century church. No author's name appeared
with the article. We have no problem with some of what
was said and we cannot know his motive, but there are
underlying implications that call for response. The
article in its entirety is printed in italics, with my
comments in parenthesis.
We have heard expressions like "restoring New
Testament Christianity" and "restoring the 1st century
church." We have always used these descriptive terms
without REALLY thinking them through! (No doubt
many have not understood the restoration. However,
most gospel preachers and serious Bible students
understand that it means being bound by what the
apostles bound and not being bound by what they did
not bind (Matthew 18:18).
Think about it . . . do we REALLY want to
replicate what they did and how they did it? Let's
review:
- The 1st century church met
typically beginning about 6 p.m. on what we would
call Saturday night. This is because the Jewish day
goes from sunset to sunset.
- The 1st century church had
a worship service that lasted until midnight on at
least some occasions. Remember Paul preached until
midnight when a young man fell from an open window.
(The fact remains that it was on the first day of
the week, the Lord's Day, when they met. That they
met in the evening of the Lord's day suited their
circumstances. That preaching till midnight was only
on "some occasions" shows that such was not part of
the apostolic pattern.)
- The 1st century church did
not have a "preacher," only elders, deacons and
other men of the congregation who took turns
speaking. (Perhaps the author is unaware of
Timothy's ministry at Ephesus. Perhaps he does not
know that the churches were instructed to
financially support teachers (Galatians 6:6).
Perhaps he forgot his point above about Paul doing
the preaching. Here again, however, the issue is
moot. Scriptural precedence can be found for
full-time and for part-time preachers, for paid and
for unpaid preachers, for elders and others having
turns in preaching.)
- The speaker in the 1st
century church sat down while the congregation stood
up. (The young man who fell from the window had
been sitting in the window! Really! Really! Is this
a vital issue?)
- During worship, the typical
1st century congregation would separate women and
children from the men. (Even if it was
"typical," there is no Bible evidence that such was
required.)
- The 1st century church did
not sing in 4 part harmony like we do today. What we
now know as 4 part harmony was not developed until
the middle ages! And also . . . You guessed it! . .
. no song books! (What they did have was
congregational singing. The instructions in
Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16
indicate a variety of a capella music. Yes, we are
expected to worship as they did—singing and making
melody in the heart. No, there were no printed and
bound song books, nor, for that matter, printed and
bound Bibles, nor bulletins such as the one which
carried this article. But this does not mean they
had no songs.)
- The 1st century church did
not own a church building, it was illegal for
Christians to own such property until after
Constantine who arrived some 400 years after the
life of Christ. The 1st century church met
"house to house." (In fact, New Testament
congregations met in various places—temple, houses,
school, synagogues, outdoors. As a matter of
history, some church buildings were owned before
Constantine (who incidentally came to the throne
around A.D. 323, not 400). He returned buildings to
the churches that persecutors had confiscated. It is
true, of course, that no buildings were owned in the
early years. The teaching of the apostles gave no
regulations as to the meeting place, only that the
church should meet. The place of meeting is
incidental.)
- The 1st century church
partook of a common meal together either before,
during or after what we now call the "Lord's
Supper." (We now call it the "Lord's Supper"
because that is what the apostles called it (I
Corinthians 11:20). That the shared meal was a
part of every occasion when the church came together
cannot be proven. What can be proven is that the
Lord's Supper is not to be confused by the mixing of
a common meal (I Corinthians 11:20ff). New Testament
Christians did share together in fellowship meals,
and the same is practiced in churches of Christ
today.)
- The New Testament church in
the 1st century did NOT have a New Testament! Peter,
Paul and the other apostles preached Jesus from the
"law and the prophets." (From Pentecost on
the New Testament [Covenant] was preached and in
force (Hebrews 8:8, 13; 12:24); et al.
Obviously it was not in written form until it was
written, but when they preached from the "law and
prophets" they interpreted it by New Testament
truth. When it was written down it was inspired
Scripture (II Peter 3:16; I Corinthians 14:37);
et al. There is not a single truth about the
redemption that is in Jesus that can be proven
without the New Testament. Why would anyone want to
confuse folk by saying the early church did not have
the New Testament? Today we preach Jesus out of the
Old Testament and the New. But no one was ever able
to preach the full gospel without the New Testament
revelation.)
- The most common means of
transportation to and from church in the 1st century
was ON FOOT. (This is deep! Maybe this is
supposed to imply that if we ride in a car we ought
to be allowed to add jelly to the communion, baptize
babies, and have a pope.)
- The faithful member in the
1st century church had to be willing to pay a great
cost for the privilege of serving the Lord. He/she
had to be willing to lose his rights, his property,
his family, his friends and his health. He had to be
willing to undergo beating , floggings and even
stonings. He had to be willing to "lay down
his life." (There is a flaw in logic called
mixing apples and oranges. Here the writer jumps
from trivial incidentals to issues of essential
commitment. Yes, we do indeed need to restore the
kind of commitment named. In his opening lines he
asked ". . . do we really want to replicate what
they did . . . ?" We would be foolish to claim we
know how strong we would be faced with persecution.
But surely we all agree that if it became necessary
we would want to "replicate what they did" in the
face of persecution.)
- The 1st century church was
made up of FORMER drunkards, adulterers, thiefs,
murderers, abusers of all kinds, homosexuals, liars,
idolaters, and legalistic Jews who insisted in
physically mutilating Gentiles for the "right" to be
a Christian! Worship services were filled with
escaped slaves, fugitives from justice and the "riff
raff" of society at large. (The operative word
is "FORMER." See I Corinthians 6:9-11. The
gospel is for all and every sin can be forgiven when
there is repentance. This does not mean, however,
that the New Testament church was a fellowship that
tolerated the practice of such things. Do we believe
in restoring the gospel invitation to all sinners,
teaching them that if they believe and obey they
will be added to the church? Yes, this must be a
part of the restoration.)
Having noted these differences, do we have
ANYTHING in common with them? YES!!!!!! J-e-s-u-s . .
. .
Brothers and sisters, the challenge for us today
is not as much to restore 1st century Christianity as
it is to restore 21st century man to the 1st century
Christ! ("First century Christianity" and the "1st
century Christ" are not mutually exclusive. What kind
of logic supposes that one can be restored to Christ
without being restored to his instructions? Does the
author suppose that one will be more with Christ by
giving less heed to the teaching of Christ's apostles?
Did the apostles keep people away from Jesus by
binding the Lord's commandments? See Matthew 18:18;
28:18-20? Were New Testament Christians less
devoted to the Lord because they kept the ordinances
of the apostles? See I Corinthians 11:1-2. The
author's statement may sound good, but wrongly applied
it only detracts from the truth.)
Our mission in life is NOT to restore some
religious method, club or system . . . . the Pharisees
tried and failed that! Our mission is to simply by
word and deed help our fellowman to be reconciled back
to his maker by "loving the Lord God with all
our heart, mind, body and soul AND love our neighbor
as ourself." "In this is the whole gospel
summed up." (Is he suggesting that all who seek to
follow the New Testament pattern are like the
Pharisees? Was Paul promoting Phariseeism when he
urged standing firm for apostolic traditions (II
Thessaloninans 2:15)? Certainly the greatest
commandment is to love God, but is there really love
for God without obeying his instructions? In every age
there have been hypocrites, and in every age
Christians have fallen short of the Lord's ideal. But
we are weary of the implication that somehow those who
are committed to the restoration concept are not as
loving as those who ignore the New Testament church
paradigm. The writer says our mission is not to
restore "some religious method, club or system." This
leaves the impression that the apostolic faith and
practice was nothing but a "method." Was the New
Testament church merely a "club"? Realizing that Jesus
died for the church, we are offended by such a
suggestion.)
We have no disagreement with emphasizing Jesus
himself above all else. He is our "all and in all"
(Col. 3:11). We also realize our own failings
in sometimes failing to keep all in perspective. Is it
possible, however, for us to preach Jesus without
preaching what the apostles preached? Is it possible
to serve Christ without obeying the commandments the
apostles ordained? Is it possible to worship "in
spirit and truth" without worshiping according to the
apostolic pattern? Is one a member of Christ's church
if the church he is in cannot be identified with the
church of the New Testament? Rather than the raising
frivolous issues such as whether to sit or stand
during preaching, or whether to walk or ride to
church, or whether preaching should last until
midnight: the author ought to tell us what things we
have been wrong to restore? Have we been wrong to
insist on the restoration of scriptural terminology? a
capella music? immersion? believers' baptism?
communion on the Lord's Day? elders and deacons? the
distinction between the covenants? male leadership in
worship? etc.
One ill serves the cause of truth when he makes
light of the restoration principle.
Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword
|