Rantings of a Pastor/Gamer/Historian/Geek
I’m sure that some people won’t agree with this series of posts. And that’s fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion. Speaking of everyone being entitled to their opinion, I can’t stand it when I hear people drone on and on about being a “First Century Church”. There, I said it. I don’t want the church to “return” to the first century. Everyone can ready their stones. But, before you decide to cut me off forever, why not hear me out? And why not put down those rocks while you read…
“Why”, you may ask, “did you turn away from the new year revelry to talk about such a non-revelous topic?” Well, yesterday Tony Morgan’s Blog sported a post about a new book called Pagan Christianity?. In his post, Tony talks about some of the authors’ claims and gives us various quotes from the book.
Here are a few:
- “The one who plants a first-century-styled church leaves that church without a pastor, elders, a music leader, a Bible facilitator, or a Bible teacher… They will bring their own songs, they will write their own songs, they will minister out of what Christ has shown them–with no human leader present!”
- “Almost everything that is done in our contemporary churches has no basis in the Bible.”
- “There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor!”
As you can probably tell from the quotes, the purpose of the book is to convince believers that they have been doing Christianity all wrong. Their pastors are wrong. Their praise and worship leaders are wrong. Their momma’s were probably wrong too. The book goes on to sing the praises of the “home church” model as the only right way of doing church. Needless to say, I have some problems with this book, and I haven’t even read it yet. :P
And that got me thinking about people’s desire to return to the “New Testament Church”.
I get the fact that when most people talk about a return to the “First Century Church” (also referred to as the “New Testament Church”) what they really mean is a return to the community and loving aspects that they perceive in it. The question is, why do people feel such a strong pull to return to the first century? I mean, the entire book quoted above, along with countless others, is devoted to regaining something the church was perceived to have lost after the first century. Head over to amazon.com and search for “First Century Church”, you’ll get nearly 8,000 results.
As an historian and student of Christianity in the 2nd through 4th centuries, there’s an instinctual negative reaction to people claiming that they really want a return to the “First Century Church”. Most of the time, I don’t think that these people fully understand the consequences of what they are asking for. Much like wishes in the short story The Monkey’s Paw, a return to the “First Century Church” would come at a high price. My suspicion is that most people view the earliest Christians through rose-coloured glasses. In this series, we’re going to try to remove those bejeweled spectacles and see both the good, and bad of the first century church.
Ok, if you still want to stone me, go ahead. But, if you do, you won’t get to hear anymore about the early church. Plus, at the end of this series, I’ll be giving everyone some cake! Srlsy!
Jenny
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
From the perspective of someone not a historian- I definitely think of the community and loving aspects when I think of the early church, and that is absolutely something I want to see among believers now. (And I don’t see anything wrong with a house church being one way of attaining that vision, although I don’t think it MUST be that way in order to have community.) I’m really interested in hearing a more historically accurate view of the early church. :)
Kevin Stover
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Thanks for the comment Jenny. I hadn’t expected one so quickly :P
I hope that everyone would desire community and love, and my goal isn’t to say that the early church doesn’t model those things for us. My goal is…well, you’ll just have to wait and see ;)
P.S. I think that house churches are a great way to spread the Gospel and create community, but the authors of the book go a little bit farther than saying that. It’s the “only” part of their statements that I don’t get along with. They actually give a guide somewhere near the end of the book to help people leave their current church to form/find a house church.
Jenny
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yeah, I don’t like the notion that one particular way (whatever that way may be) is the best and right way for everyone, at all times, in all situations. I personally do like a lot about the house church concept, but I also know it wouldn’t work for everyone.
I read the blog, and I think that the book probably makes some good and valid points to consider; it never hurts to consider where changes may truly need to be made. But I’m wary of the idea that one particular way is the only right way.
Kevin Stover
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Yeah, that’s the problem I have as well. I don’t think any one church has cornered the market on the “right” way to do things. I would like to read the book myself. It never hurts to take an honest look at why you do things, where your traditions came from, are they actually hindrances, etc. Perhaps the book is an example of trying to swing the pendulum to an extreme so that it will eventually rest in the middle?
James Laws
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The real problem that I have with the ideas being presented in the book is that the Bible never actually teaches us exactly how “church” should be done and therefore does not teach exactly how “church” shouldn’t be done. We are given guidelines but not hard fast rules.
For instance, one of the things Paul taught the Corinthians was to “have” church with the outsider in mind. He taught us that it was better to teach an understandable message than to try and impress each other with our “extra-spiritual” gifts. He never said how or where that understandable message was to be presented.
What if we stopped trying to sell our preference as the “only” way and started “doing” what we felt God was calling “us” to do. Although I am sure this was not the authors attempt, it seems that this goes farther to divide the church than unite it. Just my two cents.
Verge » Blog Archive » Why I Don’t Want A First Century Church (Part 2): The Church Is People!
January 4th, 2008 at 7:30 am
[…] James Laws on Why I Don’t Want A First Century Church (Part 1) […]
Verge » Blog Archive » Why I Want A First Century Church.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
[…] James Laws on Why I Don’t Want A First Century Church (Part 1) […]
Patsy
January 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Thanks for all the thoughts and opinions I have read on this topic. I do not attend Lifepoint. I attend a local Baptist church here in town. I saw the Lifepoint poster, looked you guys up on the internet, and have been receiving your newsletters ever since.
My family and I attend your traditional “church”. We attend services Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. We still have Sunday school which we like to call “small group”. There is nothing wrong necessarily with the way we do “church”. But here is what I have experienced and come to understand.
My family went through training to lead a house church several years ago. The training was led by our Missions Pastor who was very progressive in his thinking. That training session was one of the most blessed times that we have ever experienced in the church. We built deep relationships with each family that attended this training. My husband and I grew spiritually during the training and have continued to grow after. We lived “life on life” with these people. We ate with them. We prayed with them. We read God’s word together. We Knew each others needs, hurts, joys, kids, likes, dislikes, etc. We helped each other paint houses, fix stuff, took care of each others kids, made food for each other when it was needed, etc. We got to know each other in a very intimate way. We became family.
That training session ended. We loved it, but we were heavily involved at our church during normal church hours and were in leadership so we had many responsibilities. This training was additional to all our other obligations at church. So we became tired and overwhelmed.
The truth is most people attend church because that is what they are supposed to do. It is a good, moral thing to do, and God wants us to not forsake the fellowship. They serve because that is what they are supposed to do. They feel connected because they serve, but I have seen many families that when they stop serving they realize they were not connected at all. They have a false sense of connection. They get lost in the cracks. So the problem with traditional church is that unless you intentionally build close relationships outside of service and church times you don’t experience the life of the body. You don’t experience community. And so many of those who serve are so tired from their serving that outside of their church responsibilites they just want to rest.
But I must go back to one thing that God taught me this past year. We don’t love him first. We love ourselves first. All that we do should be because we love him first; church attendance, service to others, small groups, house churches.
House churches have their good and bad points as does the traditional church. Each person can decide what works best for them. The most important thing to do is to love God first and then love our neighbor as ourselves. As we go, we should disciple those who are young in the faith and encourage those who are pursuing God. We need to be intentional about building community within the Body of Christ. And as we are full of Christ we need to be a light in the world for those who are perishing.
So instead of “doing church” we need to BE the church. Whether that is in homes or at a building that has been set apart for the purpose of believers coming together.
Thanks for reading my rambling. May God bless your efforts and His ministry He has given you to do.
Kevin Stover
January 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Patsy,
Thanks for your response. Also, thanks for reading our blog and our newsletter, even though you aren’t a part of our “local” body. We know that LifePoint doesn’t have the market cornered on the best ways to “do” church, heck, we don’t even have the best ways of “being” the church! But, we are trying.
I think that the church will start to make a difference in Cleveland when Christians understand, like you apparently do, that churches aren’t in competition with one another. It’s not about “traditional” versus “contemporary” versus “emergent”. Everyone “does” church in a way that reaches a certain group of people. One of my favourite quotes is: “It takes different churches to reach different kinds of people.” I agree totally with your comment, and thanks again.