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:
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
Is this the church we mean? Do we really want to go back to all that?
Doggie's Breakfast 
I think Acts 2:42-47 is a great model for us to strive for. Will we reach it? No. Unfortunately churches are full of people! 🙂
I’ve seen many current churches with the same problems the early church had. However I don’t think it should not stop us from trying to go back to Acts 2.
Stephen, I read your post on Todd’s website and thought that I would post my response here as well as Todd’s website because, while Todd is a good guy, he is a major lackey for the institutionalized church and will probably delete my post.
So here it is:
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” (/sarcasm) 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.
Matt,
Dead right. It was not my intention to suggest that we should not be guided by the Acts 2 model. But I was trying, inexpertly, to point out that we can look at the early church with rose-tinted spectacles and believe it was perfect.
Ricky,
I suppose I should have expected that if I write a rant, then I should get one in return. And I sure got it! Serves me right.
I am no lover of mega-churches. I believe they have succumbed to the materialistic, performance-driven culture that we are taught to contend against.
I do believe that Acts 2 is a model for the church, but only part of it. Alongside it we see many errors. Much later in revelation (e.g. Timothy, Titus) we see Paul setting out principle for church government. Structure is necessary. Shepherds are necessary to guard the flock.
We also need to give respect to our theological heritage. It is a strange fact of church history that many of the doctrines that evangelicals hold dear were only clearly identified (though they were always there) after going through the debate of theological controversy, over many centuries. Those who look idealistically at Acts 2 often, in my experience, want to chuck all that. They run the risk of allowing the same or similar errors to arise.
The church today is not perfect, by any means. But it is Christ’s church. He is lord of history with the church at the very centre of his attention. His power is not lacking. Therefore the church today is the church as he intended. It is not what it will be, it is not what it was, but it is what it is because Christ says so.
Thanks for you comment. It was “interesting”. 😉
To believe that the early church had no structure but the Holy Spirit doesn’t do justice to Scripture.
Interesting that you posted this on Monday, Stephen. I blogged in a similar vein today. The truth is that no church is going to be perfect with real-life people involved. The early church was no exception.
I hope all here do not mind if I join this discussion. Stephen you are right in both of your post. Acts 2 is the model and the early church was not perfect. You are also correct when you say that it took the church hundreds of years to actually debate and hammer out doctrine. That is why we have the creeds and confessions of the church. Acts 15 is the first NT church council that dealt with the Galatian heresy but it the Gnostic hersery took many years to deal with so there was still many false doctrine that were plaguing the church for centuries. The mega-churches dumb down theolgy, the law of God and preach moralist, felt needs sermons that never gets to the heart of the Gospel “our sin” and our deliverance in Christ alone.
I forgot to post a comment that I heard from the “Banner of Truth” conference years ago. It was a quote by Earie Reisinger “Every pastor has 2 churches in his mind when he preaches on Sunday morning. The ideal church ( what the church is suppose to be) and the church he is presently preaching to.” This has helped me tremendously during my 15 years as a pastor/missionary.
rev-ed, coconusteve,
Thanks for the comments. It is good to see the Bible and the church in their real historical settings. It is too easy to see the Bible as a flat manual for Christian living. When you do, it is easy to make big mistakes.