By Eric Svendsen

In the first issue of our newsletter we included an article entitled Statement of Purpose in which we made the assertion that certain practices of the NT church are to be considered normative for the church in every age and culture. Just what do we mean by this?

All churches (regardless of denominational affiliation) recognize certain normative features of the early church, albeit some groups emphasize certain practices over others. Many churches, for example, lay hands on elders (or on other church leaders) when ordaining them. Most churches pattern their form of church government after the pattern which they find in the NT (or so they will argue). Most (if not all) consider that meeting together on at least a weekly basis is extremely important or even (dare I say it) normative for the church in all ages and cultures. Further, I know of no reputable church that does not hold this weekly meeting on Sunday (barring seventh-day sabbatarians). The interesting thing about this, however, is that none of these practices is commanded!

Most church renewal proponents would argue that it is precisely because these practices are not commanded that they are to be considered non-normative. They would allow that if a church wants to practice these things they are perfectly free to do so just don't call them normative. But let us imagine for the moment a church which follows this philosophy of ministry and decides it wants to exercise its freedom to conduct itself as it wants. Let's say that this church decides to meet together as a church on Tuesday instead of Sunday but not every Tuesday; let's say it decides to meet together every other Tuesday, or the first Tuesday of each month. Since there is no command to meet together weekly, this church is perfectly free (isn't it?) to hold its meetings the first Tuesday of each new year if it is so inclined! (At least that is the conclusion we would have to draw under this system). Let us further imagine that this church decides, instead of meeting together as a church, to hold a monthly neighborhood Bible study something traditionally seen as a para-church activity. (But why call it a para-church activity since nowhere are we commanded to meet together as a church?). When this church obtains new members it baptizes them and places them in one of these monthly Bible studies, thus fulfilling the Great Commission (where is the command to form churches out of newly evangelized believers?). There is no leader in these Bible studies, since their is no command to have leaders in the church (and even if there were such commands, there is no command to have church per se, and since this is not a church but a Bible study, there is no violation of Scripture).

Finally this church decides that it will observe the Lord's supper once every tenth year. No one can object to this by appealing to Paul's words in 1 Cor 11:25, for the statement as often as you do this is not the equivalent of the imperative do this often!

Top

Need I continue? The point is, even the most liberally minded church renewal proponent would reject this scenario but on what basis? The renewal proponent might argue that although the pattern of the early church is not normative, the principles upon which they operated are. But then upon which principle is the church to operate? Is it to operate on the principle of meeting together once a week? Or is it to operate on the principle of the freedom it has to choose how often it decides to meet together? Depending on which principle one chooses the practice could differ radically. The point is, it is insufficient to argue that principle alone can act as the criterion upon which to determine normative church practice, for principles are dubious at best. Indeed, the church we described above could very well appeal to principles of its own to support its highly questionable practices! The fact is, if we are honest with ourselves we will have to admit that there is more to the NT pattern than we sometimes want to allow, and that we all, to some extent, see certain practices of the early church as normative even though they are not commanded (unless, of course, we find ourselves in sympathy with the church described above). The question is, Which practices are normative and what is the criterion for judging them as such? Both R. J. Bauckham and A. T. Lincoln have argued in their essays (The Lord's Day and From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective respectively) in the book From Sabbath to Lord's Day (Ed. by D. A. Carson, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) that meeting on Sunday is to be normative for the church even though it is not commanded. They base their conclusion on two criteria: (1) that the early church seems to have been practicing this universally by the end of the apostolic era; and (2) that it took on the title Lord's day according to Rev 1:10 (pp. 236,39-40,383,87-88), so that Bauckman can conclude that this custom has received the stamp of canonical authority (p. 240, see also p. 388). I dare say that this represents the consensus of evangelicalism at large. We have little problem with the first criterion of these two scholars; it is only with the second that we disagree. It sounds too much like the second criterion is put there only to

exclude as normative other universal practices held by the first century church. Yet in what way this church practice can be considered normative without conceding other church practices to be normative is not readily apparent. This can be amply demonstrated by pointing to other universal practices of the church which took on distinctive titles, such as the love feast (Jude 12) or the holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; etc.). Yet it is doubtful that Bauckham or Lincoln would conclude that these are to be normative for the church. Nevertheless, both of these scholars so much as admit that the second criterion is merely a confirmation of the first, and especially so with Lincoln when he states we are not using this passing reference [Rev 1:10] in order to establish a precedent but to show that a precedent had already been set . . . and met with . . . approval (p. 387). With this we agree. But then is it too much to say that other universal church practices were considered normative by the early church even though they took on no identifying title? For instance, what title would the apostles have given to the early church practice of meeting in homes if they wanted it to be a church custom? We call them house-churches, but is it reasonable to assume that the apostles would have deemed it necessary to give this practice a special title if (and only if) they saw it as normative? On the other hand, Bauckman and Lincoln have not without good reason qualified their first criterion with their second. They no doubt see the problem of simply saying whatever the early church did we should likewise do; for then we would all be conducting our meetings by candlelight, wearing tunics, and writing to one another on parchment! Yet their second criterion is far too reductionistic and unnecessary not to mention that it does not account for those practices (such as the frequency of the Lord's supper, the form of church government, etc.) which have no specific title. It seems best to say (as we do) that it is the distinctive practices of the early church that are normative for today. This would include those things that have to be seen as church customs and not culturally conditioned practices. It would distinguish, for instance, between using candles to give light to the meeting place or writing on parchment (things practiced in the culture of that time) and holding a love feast or meeting together on Sunday (things practiced distinctively by the church). This is the foundation upon which we will build our hermeneutic. Although much more can be said to commend this method (such as authorial intent and the theology behind each practice).

Top

Before continuing with our discussion on how to determine normativeness, allow me to clear up a potential misunderstanding about what we mean by the word normative. The word has been used by some to signify what is absolutely binding on the church. We mean no such thing. What we mean is that the NT pattern is most beneficial for the church; that is to say, God's design for the church is better than any man-made design, no matter how pragmatic that design might be. It should therefore come as no surprise that (although not considering it binding) we argue strongly for the normative nature of the NT pattern in the area of ecclesiology. Any man-made design for the church invariably fails in one way or another to express fully the intended purpose and function of the church gathered. For instance, a large church gathering may be very pragmatic for corporate worship or evangelism, but it fails miserably in edification and mutual participation of all its members. The Lord's Supper (as currently practiced in the large church) may very well convey a memorial to Christ, but it hardly conveys the concept of unity demanded by 1Cor10:16-17.

It is only when we recognize that God was more instrumental in setting the pattern of the NT church than we commonly want to allow, that the whole issue of what is normative becomes exceedingly clear. Only when we see that function and form are not mutually exclusive ideas (and that they are in fact complimentary to each other) will it become evident that the function of the NT church is best carried out by the NT form of the church. Why do we so readily assume that we can do things more effectively with our methods and programs than with the Divine pattern? One can argue all he wants that the NT pattern just won't work in today's society, but until the church begins to follow the NT pattern and sees for itself whether or not it will work, that argument will never be substantiated. Are God's hands tied? Does the surrounding societal culture really have anything at all to do with whether or not God's pattern for the church will work? Does God really depend on our ingenuity and innovation to make his church work? I hope the answer is obvious. The NT church did not have any programs to speak of, was without formality, finances and mission boards, and held its meetings in the simplicity of the homes of its members. Yet opponents of Christians in the first century could say that they turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6)! How many opponents (or friends for that matter) of Christianity have said that about today's church? 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 [cf. "Oneness in the Lord's Supper"], 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. Paul is discussing what he calls the Lord's Supper (v. 20), but it is abundantly clear that he is describing the Love Feast. For instance, he says, "in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. . . . do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing?" (v. 21-22). It is often pointed out that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for the way they were conducting the Lord's Supper. It is then contended on this basis that Paul sees the love feast as optional while upholding the Lord's Supper as binding. The standard proof-text for this is v. 34: "If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." But this is surely a misreading of the verse. That Paul is not advocating the termination of the Love Feast is evident from the use of the singular "anyone" and the third person singular "him." Paul is simply saying that if any individual cannot keep himself from eating all the food before the poor get there (vv. 21-22) then he is better off eating at home before the meeting begins. This is not to say that he won't eat something at the meeting as well, only that he won't be tempted to hoard that which rightly belongs to all the members of the body. 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").

Another practice of the church largely neglected today but having great theological significance is the mutual participation of the saints in the assembly. The analogy of the physical body which permeates Scripture demands a spiritual counterpart whose individual members are all functioning properly and doing their fair share (Eph 4:16). The theology of the body is naturally manifested in mutual participation. Possibly the most underrated of all NT patterns is the house church. Yet it is perhaps the hub around which all other NT 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.

Top

These are but a few examples of why the early church practiced the things they did. It was not merely a matter of convenience or culture; it was rather a matter theology. There was (and is) no such thing as a distinctive NT church practice which was (is) "optional." All the churches of the NT practiced the same thing. The fact that the church in its early stages met together daily and later met together weekly does not argue against a uniform early church practice. Certainly there was a developmental stage of the church, but that did not last long; it is clear that at the end of the apostolic age there appear to be distinct practices of the church that were adhered to universally.

Other practices could be mentioned (such as the Lord's Day and its significance for the celebration of the resurrection) but space does not allow. Is the church today effectively carrying out her duties? If so, according to whose standards? Those of the church, or God's? Does God really want us to compromise some church practices (and functions) so that we can emphasize others? We contend that there does not need to be that kind of disjunction; that we don't need to throw out some in order to hold on to others. 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 NT 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 this age" rather than on the wisdom of God.