Should Apostolic Church Practices Be Normative?

The November/December issue of Modern Reformation [1993] published by C.U.R.E. (Christians United for Reformation) contains a book review by Rick Ritchie wherein the authors James Rutz (The Open Church) and Robert Webber (Evangelicals on the Canterbury Road) are critiqued in their respective works (pp.31-33).

Mr. Ritchie, while not agreeing with the central ideas of both books, maintains that it would be wrong for the "uncritical reader to assume that I disliked reading Rutz’s and Webber’s books. Not so. I found Rutz likable and Webber captivating. My hope is that evangelicals will read Rutz and Webber" (p.33).

Both Rutz and Webber are calling for a reform within our churches and, particularly, how we structure our church services. Rutz (an evangelical) wants greater participation from the "laity" with less dependence upon the "clergy," whereas Webber (an Episcopalian) wants the Church to return to its rich heritage of liturgical worship and Anglican forms. While Rutz and Webber diverge on many points, Ritchie claims that they are secret alliance: "Though each has ideas for reform, they refer to the same source: early church worship and practice. They also leave out a crucial element of Reformation church life: Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone is our authority. The authors’ ideas may be liberating, and may be deeply moving, but they are not Protestant" (p.31).

It is clear that the apostolic church patterns of the first century hold no significance for Mr. Ritchie. He further writes, "We place ourselves in the same danger when we allow the early church practice to be set up as law. Perhaps the early church was more informal than today’s church. So what? Does that make present practices wrong? We cannot claim that the early church was inerrant. A rereading of the New Testament is enough to refute that opinion . . . It is his [Rutz] claim that his plan ought to be followed because it follows the pattern of the early church. We must reject this claim out of hand. If his ideas seem worth following on their own merit, then that is another thing altogether" (p.32).

It must be said at the outset that, while I have read Rutz, I have not read Webber. However, I will admit that my sympathies are more in line with the opinions of Rutz, than with Webber (although, there are, admittedly, some weaknesses and overstatements within Rutz’s work). Be that as it may, my objective is not to defend Rutz per se, but to (1) provide biblical and theological reasons why the distinctive, apostolic church patterns should be normative for today’s church; and (2) to briefly respond to some of the flaws within Ritchie’s review.

1. To what extent should contemporary churches follow the practices and patterns of the early church? How do we determine what is normative and what is not? It must be noted at the outset, that all churches (regardless of their denominational particulars) recognize certain features that were normative or practiced by the early first century church, yet never commanded. For instance, many congregations consider it necessary to establish their church government after the New Testament pattern (e.g., a plurality of elders) even though there is no clear scriptural imperative that every church do this. The same could be said for our weekly meeting on Sunday, laying hands on the elders, and many other practices.

Even though there is no specific command to do these things, many churches would feel that they have been unfaithful to God’s Word if they did not implement them. Why is that? Because they recognize that such practices were the distinctive practices and ministry patterns of the early church and are, therefore, normative for today.

But what is meant by "distinctive" apostolic patterns? And how can we tell what is "distinctive" and what is not? Briefly, a distinctive apostolic church pattern is a practice that:

A. Often goes contrary to the culture of the day (e.g., Jews and Gentiles meeting and eating together as one body [Eph.2:11-16]).

B. Goes contrary to the religious custom of the day. In other words, it is those religious practices or traditions which went counter to the pagan religions then prevalent in the Graeco-Roman world (e.g., the early Christians, in contrast to Judaism and the pagan mystery religions, had no need for temples or shrines; nor did they have any need for special "holy men" or priests who would perform religious exercises on their behalf).

C. Is usually (though perhaps not always) repeated within the New Testament and which seems to have been the normative practice of the early Christian assemblies. A uniformity in basic church structure and practice appears to have been the mark of all apostolic churches. For example, the pattern of multiple participation is found in Romans (12:4-8), 1 Corinthians (14:26), Ephesians (4:11-16; 5:19), Colossians (3:16), Hebrews (10:24-25), 1 Peter (4:10-11), and most books of the New Testament – indicating, of course, that there was a distinctive apostolic practice common to all the churches regardless of their geographical location (1 Cor.4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33).

D. Distinctive apostolic practices are rooted in theology. In other words, New Testament forms were not meaningless or merely cultural, but instead, reflective of theological truth.

Thus, something does not have to be explicitly commanded in order to remain authoritative for church practice. Rather, distinctive apostolic patterns should suffice. They stand out; they are discernible; and they reflect Christian theology.

In fact, think of the absurdities that we would be led to if we argued that only those things which are directly commanded should be practiced by our churches. For instance, since there is no imperative (direct command) to gather on Sunday, we will meet on Tuesday’s. Since no passage exists which commands us to meet weekly, we will meet on a bi-monthly basis (thus, fulfilling in some sense, the words of Heb.10:25). Since there is no command to have the Lord’s Supper weekly, we will have it once every two years (after all, 1 Cor.11:25 says, "as often as you do this," not "do this often"!). Since there is no explicit command that every church have a plurality of elders and deacons, we will appoint one man as our sole leader. Since there is no command that church services be participatory, we will prevent the saints from exercising their gifts and relegate any activity to one man. The reader, I hope, will see the foolishness of such reasoning and discover that, if one consistently follows through with this kind of logic, much of our apostolic ecclesiology would be discarded.

The Southern Baptist theologian, J.L. Dagg, in his Manual of Church Order (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books [Reprint, 1858]), provides an illuminating comment on this issue of direct command and its absence in matters of church practice:

It must be admitted, that the Scriptures contain very little in the form of direct precept relating to the order and government of churches. But we have no right to require that everything designed for our instruction in duty, should be made known to us only in the way of direct command. Judicious parents give much instruction to their children by example; and this mode of instruction is often more intelligible and more useful than precept. It was made the duty of the apostles to teach their converts whatsoever Christ had commanded, and to set the churches in order. If, instead of leaving dry precepts to serve for our guidance, they have taught us, by example, how to organize and govern churches, we have no right to reject their instruction, and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life. The actions of a wise father deserve to be imitated by his children, even when there is no evidence that he intended to instruct them by his example. We revere the apostles, as men inspired with the wisdom which is from above; and respect for the Spirit by which they were led, should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest. But the apostles designed that their modes of procedure should be adopted and continued. Paul commended the church at Corinth, because they had kept the ordinances as he had delivered them. Some things which needed further regulation, he promised to set in order when he came, evidently implying that there was an order which ought to be established. Titus, whom he had instructed, he left in Crete, to ordain elders in every city, and to set in order the things that were wanting. To Timothy, he said: "The things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also"[2 Tim.2:2]. As matters of church order formed a part of of his own care and action, and a part of what he had committed to Titus, so we must believe that they formed a part of that instruction which he had given to Timothy, to be transmitted by him to other faithful men, and by them to their successors . . . We arrive, therefore, at the conclusion that, whatever the apostles taught, whether by precept or example, had the authority, not only of the Holy Spirit by which they were guided into all truth, but also of their Lord who had commissioned them (pp.84-86).

2. As previously indicated, in determining what is normative for our churches, we are to also look at the theological intent behind the particular practice. It is not simply a matter of whether it is commanded or not. Instead, we must go on to ask, "Why did the early church choose to do it in this manner or form?"

For example, what is the theological significance behind the mutual participation of the saints within the assembly? Clearly, it is the theology of the Body which is manifested in mutual participation. The analogy of the physical body which Paul frequently speaks of (cf. 1 Cor.12:12-27; Eph.4:16), finds its spiritual counterpart when each believer within the assembly exercises their gifts and contributes to the upbuilding of the Body. Therefore, instead of rejecting the clear New Testament practice of mutual participation (as most churches do) because it is not commanded, we see some very specific theological reasons why local churches should continue to implement it.

Even though there is liberty for each local assembly to practice New Testament patterns in ways that are unique to their cultural setting, we are not at liberty to out-right deny those patterns. To give another example, we may have the freedom to implement mutual participation in ways that are different from other churches, but not the freedom to altogether discontinue its practice from the church gathering. Why? At least four reasons can be given:

A. Because the practice and pattern of the early apostolic churches was one of mutual participation (see the importance of distinctive apostolic patterns listed above).

B. The nature of a church gathering is one of mutual participation and contribution by the saints.

C. The theological implications of "the Body" finds its fulfillment and counterpart in mutual participation.

D. Church edification can only be fully realized when each member does its part – "For the body is not one member, but many" (1 Cor.12:14).

In an article on this very point, the New Testament Restoration Newsletter states (forgive the extended quote):

Perhaps more important than the pattern itself is the theology behind the pattern. It hardly needs to be said that we are not advocating a merely superficial adherence to otherwise meaningless patterns. On the contrary, we are arguing that there were good reasons for the first-century church universally adopting certain practices – reasons that are deeply entrenched in theology. For instance, as was pointed out in last month’s issue, there is a complete theology of unity behind the pattern of using one loaf of bread and one cup in the Lord’s Supper. If the church today is to have the same theology of the Lord’s Supper as the apostolic church, then we simply cannot ignore the pattern which they gave us to exemplify that theology. It is not simply a matter of whether or not it is commanded; that misses the point. We have to stop thinking in those terms if we are to recapture the intended theology behind apostolic orthopraxy. Another example is the love feast. Although today we see a great distinction between the love feast and the Lord’s Supper (usually contending that the latter is binding while the former is optional or even a thing of the past which is best not practiced today), the apostolic church saw no such distinction. Granted the loaf and the cup were central to the Lord’s Supper, yet the early church did not see the Supper apart from the feast. This is clear in 1 Cor.11 where Paul is correcting the Corinthians’ errors about the Lord’s Supper . . . Even in the Last Supper the bread and cup were in conjunction with an entire meal. So again we see a theology behind the practice. The participation in a meal by the body of Christ not only offers an opportunity to share material goods with each other (and especially with the poor who have nothing), but is also symbolic of the eschatological wedding banquet of the Lamb (Mt.26:29; Mk.14:25; see esp. Lk.22:16-18, "I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God") . . . Possibly the most underrated of all New Testament patterns is the house church. Yet it is perhaps the hub around which all other New Testament practices take their form. For instance, the practice of the love feast, the use of one loaf and one cup in the Lord’s Supper, and the idea of mutual interaction and participation of all the members of the body seem awkward and extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do unless they are practiced in the home as opposed to a larger setting for the church meeting. Moreover, the church is a family, not a business. The church has a personal relationship with God the Father. Which setting best conveys the picture of a family and a personal relationship with God – a specially designed building, or the home? The theology of the body as a family ought to be the determining factor in deciding how and where the church meets . . . All the distinctive practices of the early church had theological significance. Dare we forfeit – indeed, can we afford to forfeit – those things which may very well have been the key to making the New Testament church the living, thriving, dynamic force that it was in the first-century world? Let us reexamine afresh apostolic orthopraxy lest as a church we continue to second-guess the divine design and in the process find ourselves relying on the "wisdom of the age" rather than on the wisdom of God ("Determining What Is Normative" [Part 2], Vol.1/No.4, June 1991, p.2).

3. When I assert that apostolic ecclesiology should be normative, the reader must understand that I am not saying that it is absolutely binding. Rather, I mean to suggest that apostolic church patterns are most beneficial or helpful to the growth and maturity of Christ’s body. The informal and liberating church structure which the apostles established is much more conducive to a mutually functioning believer-priesthood, than the stifling church structures which developed in the post-apostolic age. In other words, the function of the New Testament church is best carried out by the New Testament form of the church.

Church structure, you see, is important. It can either liberate the saints for meaningful ministry, or it can discourage (perhaps even prevent) God’s people from active involvement. As R. Paul Stevens has noted, "There is no point in saying that every member is a minister if the structures of the fellowship ‘say’ the exact opposite – by making it hard for people to discover their gifts or to exercise loving service" (Liberating the Laity, p.17).

4. Contrary to what Mr. Ritchie might be led to believe, those (like myself) who are calling for a return to apostolic ecclesiology are not calling for Christians to implement practices which were clearly cultural (such as using candles to light our meetings, wearing tunics, writing on parchments, etc.).

Neither are we exalting first-century Christianity and everything which transpired as the supreme example for churches today (except in those cases where a distinctive apostolic pattern is established). No period of church history is infallible and to be emulated without question. In fact, we know that the early churches had many problems and could behave quite carnal at times (think of the Corinthians and their numerous divisions and strife; the Galatian churches which were duped by the Judaizers; and our Lord’s stern warning to the seven churches of Asia in the Book of Revelation).

Furthermore, later periods of church history, because of the long span of time which allowed greater insight and theological understanding to develop, probably had more intellectual maturity than did the first-century church when Christian doctrine was not as clearly organized. Thus, we must be faithful to apostolic ecclesiology and yet appreciative for those advances or contributions which Christ has brought to His church through His servants (e.g., such men as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, and others).

At the same time, we must also guard ourselves from romanticizing the Reformation period and making the ecclesiology of the Protestant Reformers the final standard – for in many areas, the Reformers simply continued the rigid clericalism and excessive institutionalism began in the fourth century and which continued into the Medieval age (cf. Jon Zens, "What Can We Learn From Reformation History?" Baptist Reformation Review [Autumn 1978 – Vol.7/No.3] pp.1-13). Greg Ogden, a pastor in Saratoga (CA), writes briefly about the ecclesiological flaws of the Reformation:

Although the rediscovery of the Gospel promised a reversal of the Roman Catholic conception of ministry and in principle laid the ground for it, this has seldom been realized. In spite of the Reformation, clericalism has more often held sway . . . David Watson observes, "Most Protestant denominations have been as priest-ridden as the Roman Catholics. It is the minister, vicar, or pastor who has dominated the whole proceedings. In other words, the clergy-laity divisions have continued in much the same way as in pre-Reformation times, and the doctrine of spiritual gifts and body ministry has been largely ignored" (The New Reformation, pp.50-51).

5. In writing this, I am not suggesting that all of what we do is unbiblical, but only that much of what we practice within our churches is contrary apostolic patterns found in the New Testament. True, the apostles did not always qualify their words with explicit commands, but they did establish distinctive patterns and examples of what the churches, both ancient and modern, were to do. Notice the importance which Paul attaches to following apostolic example:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess.2:15)

Commenting on the above passages, the New Testament Restoration Newsletter, states:

Believers are to "imitate" the apostles’ "way of life," to "follow" their "example," to be "remembering" them in "everything," to be "holding" to their "traditions," to "take note" of others who also live "according" to the apostolic "pattern," and to "put into practice" "whatever" an apostle taught. Notice that these commands to copy the apostles apply to "everything" and "whatever," including their "traditions" . . . It is evident from Scripture that the apostles expected all churches to follow the same pattern. For instance, Paul taught the same thing "everywhere in every church." Those who imitated the apostles were said to be a "model" to "all" believers. To support his instructions on a woman’s head covering Paul wrote, "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches of God" (1 Cor.11:16). In establishing guidelines for orderly church meetings Paul wrote, "As in all the congregations of the saints . . .," thus appealing to a universal practice of all churches to justify his guidelines (1 Cor.14:33). Whenever a church broke with established tradition, it received immediate rebuke from the apostle, "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?"; put in slightly different terms, Paul is saying, "Did you get some new revelation from God that it is okay to change the standard practice of the church? If so, are you the only ones He gave it to, because none of the other churches are practicing this?!" (1 Cor.14:36), thus again appealing to the universal practice of all the churches ("Apostolic Tradition," [June – 1991, Vol.1/No.4] p.4).

On what basis, therefore, do we justify our denial of distinctive New Testament patterns? And why do we so often assume that our ways and methods of ministry are more effective than the Divine pattern. Why do we continue to hold on to such biblical practices as – the autonomy of the local church; meeting together weekly; laying hands on those appointed to leadership or other tasks; baptizing believers only, etc. – but deny the following: Open (participatory) church meetings; the Lord’s Supper as a "love feast" or actual meal; biblical eldership; raising and training pastoral leadership from among the church’s own ranks; consensus decision-making; the practical implications of the priesthood of all believers; and many other New Testament teachings?

Del Birkey has wisely asked, "As evangelicals we believe the church should be continually reformed by the criteria of God’s Word – that is, the apostles’ doctrine. However, to what degree are we to hold to the apostles’ teaching but not their practice of fellowship? Can we be consistent by holding firmly to their orthodoxy while holding loosely to their orthopraxy?" (The House Church, pp.152-153).

Alfred Kuen, a Bible teacher at the Emmaus Bible Institute in Switzerland, has written:

Has the not the history of twenty centuries of Christianity proved that the plan of the primitive church is the only one which is suitable for all times and places, is most flexible in its adaptation to the most diverse conditions, is the best able to resist and stand against persecutions, and offers the maximum of possibilities for the full development of the spiritual life? Each time that man has believed himself to be more intelligent than God, that he has painstakingly developed a religious system "better adapted to the psychology of man," more conformable to the spirit of our times, instead of simply following the neotestamentary model, his attempt has been short-lived because of failure due to some unforeseen difficulty. All heresies and deviations in the church spring from the abandonment of the Scripture and of the model for the church which they present . . . the churches established by the apostles remain the valid models for churches of all times and places (I Will Build My Church, pp.17, 253).

Robert L. Saucy, Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot Theological Seminary (CA), in his book, The Church in God’s Program, has written:

The chaos over the church today stems from the disengagement of its leaders from the Lord of the church and His patterns of church life. Perplexing questions as to the nature of the church, the role of the ministry, and the very purpose of the existence of the church can be answered only by a return to the origins of the church in the Word of its Lord. Progress in the church comes not from advancing beyond the biblical patterns but from building squarely upon them (pp.7-8).

Alexander R. Hay, in his classic work, The New Testament Order for Church and Missionary, argues strongly for following the apostolic pattern in church polity:

It has been concluded by some that no definite or permanent form of church organization is given in the New Testament. It is suggested that, at the time of the apostles, church organization was still rudimentary in form and only in process of formation and that its was God’s purpose that it should be developed and perfected later as the need arose. Such a conclusion, however, is a grave error: it is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and throws open the door to whatever organization man may deem necessary. The fact is that the apostles, fulfilling the ministry which God gave them, laid a complete and perfect foundation for the church, both as regards structure and doctrine. A careful and unbiased study of the New Testament will make it abundantly clear that a full and detailed revelation is given regarding the structure of the church and that all the congregations planted in apostolic times were organized in accordance with that pattern . . . It is clearly evident that Paul and all the other church-planters of that time introduced a complete and uniform order into all the churches. It is true, of course, that much was changed and much was added in the organization of the church after the days of the apostles. A definite tendency to do this had been evident even in their day and had been strongly resisted. To those who would have introduced a different order in Corinth, Paul wrote: "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Cor.11:16). That rebuke in itself proves that there was a definitely established order recognized by all the churches. It clearly implies that the order was uniform in all the churches and that no deviation from it was permitted in any congregation. Later, however, after apostolic times, this tendency to modify the divinely revealed order gained ground in the less spiritual churches. Man began to tinker with both the structure and doctrine of the foundation laid by God through the apostles, and there began the long process of development in the organization of the church, along the lines of human organization, which reached its height, in the course of several centuries, in the Roman Catholic Church. To know the doctrines and spiritual truths that God has given us, it is necessary to "search the Scriptures." It is not surprising, surely, that a diligent search of the Word of God is necessary to know the full revelation of the pattern which He has given for His church. It is not that the teaching regarding the church is obscure or difficult to discover. On the contrary, it is clear, ample and detailed. The real difficulty arises when we approach the Word with preconceived ideas. If we have modern church organization as the basis of our thinking and try to fit Scripture into that mold, we shall find ourselves faced with an impossible task. Not finding what we look for, we may conclude that the revelation is incomplete in that respect. It hardly should be necessary to say that if we desire to know the order and methods practiced in the New Testament church, we must seek to approach the Word with an entirely open mind, prepared for any unexpected discovery (pp.133-135).

In light of what I have been arguing, therefore, the proper question is not, "Why do we have to do things the way they [apostles] did it?" But rather, "Why would we want to do things any other way?"

The truth of the matter is that the majority of us have never bothered to seriously question our church practices and traditions. We do them because "that’s the way its always been done." I think it is much easier to say that we are a New Testament church than to prove it. We have simply failed to "put everything to the test, and hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess.5:21; cf. Acts 17:11). If the faith has truly been, once for all, delivered to the saints (Jude v.3), who are we to alter its implications for church life? The evangelical Christian church desperately needs to return to not only orthodoxy, but also biblical orthopraxy.

6. In his criticism of Rutz, Mr. Ritchie writes, "Rutz fails to see that the purpose of the Reformation was not institutional renewal, or even the delegation of church functions to laymen, but the recovery of the Gospel" (p.31).

Mr. Ritchie is certainly correct. But is it not clear that this is one of the major reasons why the Protestant Reformation failed to bring the kind of reform necessary to the church? To reform our soteriology (doctrine of salvation), but not our ecclesiology (doctrine and practice of the church), is merely a partial reformation. Any reformation which fails to reform how Christians practically relate to one another within the assembly and, thereby, liberate them to significant ministry, is a reformation which needs to be finished. Much to the chagrin of Mr. Ritchie, the Anabaptists were right in claiming that Luther (and others) did not go far enough in his reforms. Howard Snyder has written:

The mainline Reformation was very largely limited to the question of salvation (soteriology); it hardly touched, in any practical way, the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology), although it brought a number of structural modifications. As Hendrick Hart suggests, "Even though the leaders of the Protestant Reformation sincerely intended to break with the traditional Roman Catholic conception of the church, nevertheless the tradition arising from the Reformation did not succeed in making that break" (The Problem of Wineskins, pp.51-52).

7. Mr. Ritchie states: "The surprise is how many problems of contemporary church life are solved by the liturgy. Liturgical churches require much more participation by the congregation than most non-liturgical Protestant churches. Worshipers are always active: standing, kneeling, praying, responding, singing, or going forward for communion. The service is much less man-centered, less focused on the pastor" (p.33).

This, of course, depends on what you mean by "participation." When the New Testament speaks of a participating assembly, it does not quite picture what Mr. Ritchie envisions. It pictures an informal gathering within a home, not a formal meeting within a specially designed religious building; it pictures a spontaneous (but orderly) gathering where each believer is permitted to exercise his or her gift for the common good (1 Cor.12:4-11; 14:26-31; Col.3:16; 1 Pet.4:10-11), not a rigid "order of worship" which limits significant contribution to "ordained" clergymen, rendering everyone else (for the most part) passive spectators; it pictures the unique and personal contribution of each saint, not the cookie-cutter kind of participation which occurs when everyone is ordered what to say and do (a common feature of both Roman Catholic and Reformed churches); it pictures the saints as free to sing a heartfelt song unto the Lord or share a word of encouragement to a discouraged believer, not a mass of people (believer and unbeliever alike) who apathetically repeat by rote what is printed before them in words from bygone centuries; it pictures the congregational leaders as contributing to the meeting, but not domineering it as is common in most Protestant churches where "the pastor" is the focal-point in most (if not all) of what transpires; it pictures the Lord’s Supper as a joyous celebration in connection with a full meal, not a cracker and shot-glass of juice connected to an elaborate ritual which is dispensed by only "ordained" clergymen.

While Mr. Ritchie has some insightful things to say in his review of Rutz and Webber, it is clear that he does not understand the rationale or theological basis for following apostolic patterns. Perhaps this is due to Rutz’s failure to explain these matters within his book (although, in all fairness, I highly doubt that this was his purpose). Whatever the case may be, I hope that I have provided the reader with some sound reasons for adhering to New Testament ecclesiology. Soli deo Gloria!