Yarr! – The Weblog of Bob Heffernan

The second objection to the idea of `New Testament Christianity’ (see my last three posts) is the following:

• What about the fact that the NT churches had obvious problems? Are we wise to try to emulate them?

This is a very common objection must be tackled in some detail. At base the objection is this: the early church clearly had many problems — a reading of some of Paul’s letters or of the first few chapters of Revelation makes this abundantly clear. When it comes to ecclesiology, for instance, might it not be the case that post-biblical developments in church organisation (which still have their `roots’ in scripture) have developed precisely to provide safeguards against some of these problems. In this way the emergence of hierarchy, the prominence of the pastor in Protestant circles or the priest and bishop in Catholic circles, the clergy laity distinction, and so on, may well be developments prompted by the Spirit in order to ensure order, to safeguard doctrine, etc.

If we take the word `church’ to denote a particular gathering of people (rather than something more general) the objection may be nuanced a little further — which New Testament church are you trying to emulate? The church in Corinth?, the church in Galatia?, the church in Rome? Each of these had significant problems. Suggesting that there is some perfect 1st century church that we must emulate is to ignore the clear biblical evidence that no such church ever existed.

In response to the latter point it should be made clear that I am not proposing some particular 1st century Christian grouping be emulated slavishly. Nor am I implying that the 1st century church taken as a whole was or is perfect and should, as such, be emulated. Finally, I am not postulating the existence of some theoretical perfect church that can or should be emulated. However, to say this is not to say that there is little or nothing in the praxis of the early Christians that we can emulate. Recall that in my first post my programmatic statement was that `the New Testament documents give a reasonably clear picture of what early church practice was and what the teachings of some of the early apostles (especially Paul) were with regard to these issues.’ So, from the NT we can learn at least something about each of the following:

• what the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were;
• what the self-understanding of the early believers was;
• how they attempted to put this into practice (even when they got it wrong); and
• how they were corrected when they did get it wrong.

From this we can think about

• how we might learn from the experience of the NT church — including how we might learn from the mistakes made and the corrections given; and
• how we might attempt to live in our context in the same sort of way that they did in theirs.

A larger issue of hermeneutics is raised here — how do we use scripture to inform our own practice? Can we read Paul, for instance, and extract a number of timeless abstract principles that can be applied in the present? If so, why are we presented with information about early praxis at all (including problems and mistakes)? If not, how do we apply scripture? I want to deal with this and other issues in a future post but a brief discussion is relevant here. As is often pointed out, the NT is not a systematic theology. The Gospels and Acts present us with various narratives and the other books (the various epistles and Revelation) are rooted in and proceed out of the narrative of the early church (given, at least in part, in Acts). So, to take Scripture seriously we must take it seriously in the form in which it presents itself. If narrative really is important then our task must be to see how the early church acted (and reacted) and what their teachings were and then to try to discern why they acted as they did, discern why they made the mistakes they made, discern why the corrections take the form they do and finally to decide if Christian praxis in the modern context should look substantially the same as, or dramatically different from, Christian praxis in the 1st century.

My contention, and I must attempt to substantiate it in a future post, is that the praxis of the Christian was in the 1st century, and should be in the 21st century, non-hierarchical, egalitarian and communitarian and that the NT documents provide the basis for a workable model to emulate in this regard. If we attempt to live in our context as the earliest Christians did in theirs the same pattern should emerge — that of real community, existing in the power of the Spirit and demonstrating in and to the world the very love of God.

I feel that many of the post-biblical developments in ecclesiology and much of what we take for granted in the way that we exist and act as Christians today (particularly in our gatherings) does more harm than good — stifling the active participation of most individuals (especially women) and replacing the vibrant (if sometimes flawed) community we find in the 1st century with a rigid hierarchical system which, even when populated by well intentioned people, mitigates against the manifestation of that community of the redeemed characterised by love that the earliest Christians sought to embody.

Addendum

Reading back over the last few posts I realise I’ve been presenting the hermeneutic/attitude of `NT Christianity’ as if it were an original idea of my own. This couldn’t be further from the case. The attitudes I’m outlining are certainly not original or particular to myself, although they do characterise the attitude I was brought up with in my local fellowship. Much of the way I think about the Christian life — even when I feel I have arrived at some of it through my own searching, thinking and praying — is due to the values instilled in me by my parents and other members of my fellowship. Some of what I am talking about is central to the house church movement and some of it may be found in parts of the emerging church movement. Like I said in my first post, although you can find Christians of most stripes who would agree with most or all of what I’m saying I still find that I am on a slightly different wavelength to most of the Christians I talk to. This series of posts is largely an attempt to put into words some of my own thoughts and attitudes and to see if any of it holds water.

A recent and interesting, if sometimes annoyingly rhetorical, example of many of the attitudes I’ve been talking about may be found in the recent book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. This book really is worth a read. In it Viola and Barna trace the history of many common and accepted church practices and show that their origins are mostly in pagan culture rather than Jewish culture or the Bible. The argument they make is not that non-Biblical influences are necessarily wrong — they state this at the beginning of the book although their rhetoric sometimes would make it seem that this is what they’re arguing and it has been caricatured as such in reviews. The substance of their argument, however, is that if a practice has no Biblical warrant it must be examined carefully to see if it is really helpful. They (and I) feel that many of the practices considered (the emergence of a clergy, the order of worship, the proliferation of church buildings, etc.) are often not helpful and, indeed, are often quite harmful.

Other examples of the attitudes I’m outlining can be found within certain segments of the emerging movement/conversation. Many emerging Christians have a suspicion of the post-Constantinian compromise and a desire to rediscover the centrality of a missional community in the Christian life.

The first and most obvious objection to the idea of `New Testament Christianity’ (see my last two posts for a brief discussion of what I mean by this) is the following:

• Isn’t it arrogant to suggest that the church may have, or has, got it so wrong?

This question breaks down into a number of sub-questions that I want to address in turn:

1. Are you claiming that your understanding of the NT and of ecclesiology in the NT is authorative in some way and that others have, for thousands of years, simply not understood what you claim to understand?
2. Is it reasonable to ignore almost 2000 years of church history and suggest that the church was misguided throughout?

1. Am I claiming some sort of special knowledge or some special authority?

First, the straight answer: no, absolutely not.

Second the slightly snarky answer: this is the sort of accusation that those who are heavily invested in the status quo always level against those who challenge the status quo — `what makes you so special that you feel you can challenge what so many have accepted?’. To refute this one need only point out that the status quo as it stands will most likely initially have been established as a challenge against a previously prevailing status quo. So, for instance, Martin Luther and many of the other reformers made so bold as to question many of the prevailing ideas of their day — indeed they reached back behind them to Augustine and to Paul. Much of what might be construed as essential doctrine in Protestant circles today involved a challenge to several hundred years of Church teaching and practice at the time.

Third the full disclosure: I am convinced that the interpretation of Scripture and, indeed, everything else related to attempting to follow Jesus, attempting to obey the Father and attempting to live in communion with the Spirit, occurs within the context of community — in the context of the ecclesia. As such, I must always hold my own interpretations lightly and must seek to refine them in dialogue with other believers. So, I am not claiming special knowledge about the practice or belief of the early Christians nor am I claiming any special authority for my interpretation over and against that of any other Jesus follower. In fact, I think it is probable that the beliefs and practices of the early Christians are well understood (and always have been, more or less) by most theologians and biblical scholars and, often, by many or most non-academic Christians if they have taken the time to study their bibles. Moreover, I do believe that most individual Christians attempt to put into practice what they learn (with varying degrees of success, of course). So, I am not claiming any special knowledge per se. However, I am claiming that for much of its history the church (and individual Christians) have embraced a hermeneutic that postulates an essential difference between the era previous to the closing of the canon and our era (after the closing of the canon). This hermeneutic allows church practice to diverge greatly from the practice and teaching of the early church even when the church is attempting to be faithful to scripture. What I’m calling `NT Christianity’ is the rejection of this hermeneutic, not the claim to special knowledge or special interpretive authority.

2. Is it reasonable to ignore almost 2000 years of church history and suggest that the church was misguided throughout?

First the short answer: it is certainly not reasonable to reject 2000 years of church history. However, criticism of church practice throughout this history does not entail rejection of this history.

Second the slight bit of snark: I might again point to Luther and the reformers as an example of people who suggested that the church had been misguided in fundamental ways for hundreds of years. For most of these reformers this did not entail a rejection of that history.

Second the longer answer: I do not reject history. I am not declaring the last 2000 years or so to have been bunk. To illustrate this, a study of the practice of the early Christian Celts in Ireland — the way in which they managed for hundreds of years to keep the distinctives of their culture while embracing the gospel in a very radical way — has been of great importance to me and to my friends. I will not even bother to give other examples — history provides manifest examples of God revealing himself in the church and working with and through the church over the past 2000 years. This makes it entirely impossible to reject this history. However, to suggest that there may have been fundamental problems is not to suggest that there were not many triumphs. In the same way, to suggest that much or most of contemporary Christianity may have its ecclesiology wrong is not to suggest that God can not, or is not using contemporary Christians. However, it is impossible to deny the serious problems of modern Christianity — for example, one need only read John 17 and listen to Jesus’ prayer for Christian unity and then compare it to the present situation. As such, it cannot be arrogant to attempt to identify a source of these problems or to suggest potential solutions to them.

Addendum

I should point out that one thing I feel the reformers did a very bad job of reforming was ecclesiology. More radical groups like the Anabaptists made more of an effort in this regard. The reformers largely retained many of the received ecclesiological forms and those changes they did introduce were, by and large, still in thrall to the idea of Christendom and the notion of the church as an institution. Subsequent Protestants have, of course, made substantial changes (for example, the rejection of infant baptism by Baptists and others). The notion of Christendom was really only challenged in the early parts of the 20th century as sweeping changes in society made it manifestly irrelevant.

I think a little more clarification is in order before I continue my series on NT Christianity.

Stepping back, for a moment, from the focus on ecclesiology, I think a good way to broadly categorise the (hermeneutical) attitude I’m calling `New Testament Christianity’ is that it is there is no fundamental difference between the sort of life a Christian can (and should) live now and the sort lived in the New Testament era.

So, for instance, I can (potentially) have exactly the same sort of relationship with God that Paul did. I can experience the presence and power of the Spirit in the same way that Stephen did. I can be used by the Spirit to do miracles in the way that Peter was. I can experience the intense Spirit-driven community that some of the early believers did. The list goes on.

I’m not being simplistic here — there are obvious exceptions. For instance, the first disciples met Jesus as a physical person whereas I can’t (this side of the eschaton) and so I can’t quite relate to god in this way. Still, I think the distinction I’m making is clear. I think it’s also clear that what I’m calling NT Christianity cannot be caricatured as a desire to start wearing sandals and togas, speaking koine Greek, or anything of the sort.

There are obvious questions arising here: if the closing of the canon does not constitute a fundamental shift in what it means to be a Christian then what is the significance of the canon or even of the canonical writings themselves for a post-400AD Christian? I will try to address some of these questions in a future post.

In my next post I will begin to tackle the first of the objections mentioned in my first post — the idea that this `NT Christianity’ hermeneutic/attitude is arrogant and revisionist.

p.s. — I am beginning to realise that the appellation of `New Testament Christianity’ is a clumsy one. I should have thought of a better phrase. I use the phrase mainly because this is a phrase we have always used in the fellowship that I am a part of, eg. `we want to be “New Testament Christians” and live like the Christians in the NT did’. This has always been an important part of our identity as a group. So I have always associated this suspicious attitude toward post-Constantinian Christianity coupled with the desire to emulate the earliest believers with the phrase `New Testament Christianity’. Would anybody like to suggest a better appellation?