In response to the post Is and Ought, Tertius writes:
“Long
time Bible readers will make such distinctions, but perhaps not know the way to
explain to others why they must be made. You have put a well packaged set of
rules for interpretation and application in their hands and so are helping
teachers how to teach; a much needed service to the Church.
An
example or two of the common mistake of using the descriptive in the narrative
in Acts as though it was prescriptive would be a useful addition.”
I agree. I think we can probably find several.
The book of Acts is primarily a historical
document. It describes what the early church did, whether it was for good, for ill or morally neutral. It does not contain much
prescriptive teaching. “You shalls” and “you shall nots” are notably absent from Luke’s narrative.
A Hypothetical
Suppose you find yourself involved in a well-attended
weekly Bible study meeting in a local basement. Several people from the
neighbourhood have come to Christ and are growing in the faith. Others who have
drifted from church to church for years say they are finding the studies
tremendously beneficial. One night about a year in, somebody pipes up and says,
“You know, this should really be a church”. A number of the regulars agree.
These are mostly evangelicals who have
tried different denominational approaches and for various reasons have found
them wanting. If they were looking for a standard church format, they’d already
be Baptists or Pentecostals. You recognize quickly that there’s no future to be
had in merely copying what is already being done by the denominations in your
neighbourhood even if you wanted to go that route. So you decide to be a “New
Testament church”, whatever that might end up meaning.
You are currently studying the book of
Acts together. What sorts of things are you likely to find there about the local church,
and to what degree might they be authoritative?
Where’s the Authority?
In Acts 2, we have the creation of the
Church at Pentecost in Jerusalem. Subsequently we read this description of the
way these early Christians occupied themselves:
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
Now, this is merely a description of what
these new believers did. It is not framed as a command, and as such we would not normally consider it
authoritative.
And yet it seems to have real authority
behind it. Churches throughout the last two thousand years have operated
primarily on this basis, with these four core mandates considered critical to
their mission. Were they all wrong?
The Teaching of Christ
Of course not. But Acts 2:42 has commended itself to generations of believers as authoritative not because it is framed as a commandment (it isn’t), but because it conveniently distills into a single verse much that
was taught both explicitly and implicitly in the gospels by Jesus Christ himself:
- The apostles’ teaching is critical to church life because it is the mission their Master gave them right before he ascended into glory: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
- While the word is not found in the gospels, fellowship is critical to church life because it characterized the relationship of the Lord Jesus and his disciples. For three years, there was an “us” and a “them” precisely because the Lord and his disciples had a mission in common. It was a unity initiated with the words “I will make you fishers of men”, confirmed with the sending of the Twelve to preach the gospel of the kingdom just as Jesus did, and epitomized in the Upper Room discourse of John 13-17 in which Jesus famously calls his disciples “friends” and expresses his desire that “they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you”.
- The breaking of bread is critical to church life because Christ commanded his disciples to do it in remembrance of him.
- The practice of praying corporately is critical to church life because Jesus taught its importance.
All the early church is really doing in Acts 2:42 is following the fundamental teachings of Christ.
The Teaching of the Epistles
If the teaching of Jesus Christ is
insufficient reason (though I’m not sure how it could be), the four things with
which the early church occupied itself in Acts 2:42 are also later taught
prescriptively in the epistles:
- Apostles’ teaching: “[An elder] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
- Fellowship: “Do not neglect to do good and to share [fellowship] what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.”
- Breaking of bread: “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
- Prayer: “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling.”
The four fundamentals of New
Testament church life are valid not simply because the early church did them
and we feel like maybe we should copy them, but because any of us who wish to
follow in the footsteps of the early church have been clearly told to do them too. They stand on
the greatest of possible foundations. They are not matters of opinion or mere incidentals.
If you are looking to turn your little home Bible study into a real, New
Testament church, there’s a solid place to start.
History vs. Commandments
But how authoritative are the recorded habits and practices of early churches that find no clear basis in the teaching of Jesus Christ or his apostles?
- Are we, for instance, to anticipate being able to heal beggars because God did so through Peter and others? Should healings be a regular feature of church life? I would suggest the absence of direct instruction from either the Lord Jesus or the apostles to us on that issue speaks for itself.
- Or should we, as the early church did, contemplate selling off our land and houses to share the proceeds with our fellow believers in need? I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world, frankly, but I note that this is never commanded of us. We are encouraged to share with those in need, but it is left to the discretion of each individual believer how best to apply that principle in their own situation. Again, the key is that the absence of direct instruction from either the Lord Jesus or the apostles to us on this subject suggests a lighter, less legalistic touch.
- Should we meet on the first day of the week to break bread, as they did at least once in Troas? There’s nothing wrong with doing so, certainly, but we must remember Luke is merely telling us what the church in Troas did, not what God commands.
If our little home church chooses to copy the
Christians in Troas, we must be careful not to stand in judgment on other Christians who might choose a different day of the week on which to gather.
Where we have no direct command from the Lord or his apostles, it would seem we are free to build the local church as seems wise to us in our own generation. The history of the churches as established in the book of Acts or elsewhere may certainly be helpful or suggestive as we seek the will of God for our particular group of believers.
In the absence of direct prescriptive teaching, however, I do not believe history can truly be authoritative.
No comments :
Post a Comment