Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Taken with permission from our brothers in the faith in Deer Park, Washington, as we have come to the same conclusions regarding the issues below. We will update this section with original content at a later date.
- So you believe the early Christian writings are scripture?
- Explain in more detail how you believe a person is saved.
- What forms of baptism do you practice or accept?
- How could "eternal security" be conditional among the early Christians?
- How can Protestants not be right when they stand on God's Word?
- How can you reject church organizations? The structure is in the Bible!
- Christianity has changed? Shouldn't we just fix our eyes on Jesus?
- Musical instruments in praise: Didn't the early disciples reject that?
- Is God blessing? Early ideals are in doubt and house churches unstable.
- Couldn't you think of a name? It's hard to know what to call your group.
- How could we start a primitive assembly/community of disciples here?
- You sound Catholic
- You sound like the Church of Christ
- You sound like the Anabaptists
Q: So you believe that the early Christian writings are scripture, or are equivalent to the New Testament in authority?
A: Not at all. The problem here is an innovative doctrine dreamed up in the 16th-century Reformation in Europe called sola scriptura (scripture alone). From its beginning, it has always been a myth. Because the Bible is subject to interpretation, and subject to various comparative understandings between books and verses based on the intellectual skill, education, preconceptions, background, personal preferences, interests, and comfort zone of the reader, without an objective standard to appeal to "we like sheep" will go astray, each turning to our own way (Isaiah 53:6). Without maintaining the direction of the King, "everyone [will do what is] right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). Today, as a result, we have well over 20,000 denominations, sects, and groups in Christendom, nearly all of whom claim to be "based on the Bible" and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Yet they teach widely varying and contradictory doctrines and practices. For example, in spite of professing this sola scriptura doctrine, Martin Luther realized in short order that people would, and did, go every which way in their use of the scriptures. What's a Reformer to do? So he published his own commentary on them as a guide for their interpretation. John Calvin did the same, as did most of the other Reformers; and all of them preached from pulpits the interpretations of the Bible they believed were best. No Christian movement in recorded history has actually believed and practiced "scripture alone." All of them utilize the traditions, understandings, and practices of someone outside of the scriptures, even if it is just themselves. Few, if any, modern Christians do not consult their commentaries, pastors, favorite authors, denomination, group, or other source to help codify their understandings of scripture.
So the question is not whether interpretive sources are going to be used, but only which sources will be used. The scripture itself recognizes and addresses this problem and we simply accept its testimony: that God determined from the beginning that making known the manifold wisdom of God was not to be simply left to a book, but left to His faithful people who have retained and who exemplify what He first delivered, once for all time (see the book of Ephesians, chapter 1, verses 3 - 12; chapter 3, verses 8 - 11; and the book of Jude, verses 1 - 4). In this, the first generations of Christians, those closest to the pure fount of Jesus and His Apostles, are those whose commentary and example carries the greatest weight in evidence for how the scriptures were taught and practiced from the beginning. They are the fruit of the Apostles' work; if we believe the fruit is bad, then we must testify that the Apostles, including those who wrote the majority of the New Testament, were false (see Matthew 7:15-18, 12:33; John 14:12). We do not make a religion of the early writers, and since we regard their writings as common testimony rather than as the inspired, pure message of God, we do not base any interpretation or practice on what any one writer of that era might say. Rather, we take them, as a whole, to be the most certain evidence of the traditions (teachings and practices) as we were originally commanded to maintain them (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; etc.). We also believe it is the elders in the Kingdom, particularly, who have a distinct responsibility to know and maintain the original apostolic traditions in the church in each city or rural area. It is not up to every individual Christian to be a literary scholar, though all are to be serious students and workers of the scriptures' teaching (see 2 Timothy 2:11-26).
It is not as if the early Christians did not face the majority of the same issues we face today, or have the same kinds of problems we have. Human nature has not changed. One of the reasons their testimony is invaluable is because it gives Christians today a glimpse into why, with so many of the same issues and problems, the outcomes of the first Christians were often so different from our own -- it was how they responded to their challenges, not their lack of challenges, that "turned the world upside down."
Not only do these first Christian writers have preeminence in commentary on the New Testament by the universal standards of evidence in interpretation of documents, but they also must be given real consideration for the fact that it was through them that God collated and preserved our New Testament scripture itself (for example, the very term "New Testament," referring to the gospels and apostolic letters, did not come from Jesus or the Apostles but from the gifted early Christian scholar, Origen). It was these first generations of believers who sorted through the many manuscripts and claims circulating in their day to determine what was genuine and most commonly accepted as scripture among the churches. Otherwise, you might be reading from the "Gospel to the Hebrews" or "The Revelation of Peter," two works among many which they rejected. In short, while we believe that their testimony as common believers is the most certain indicator of the original standards and work of the Spirit in the doctrine and lifestyle of Christians, we also believe that the kinds of human mistakes and errors that appear in their writings (having the same silly propensities and mistaken beliefs in science or other subjects as all common writers are subject to) are actually a striking evidence and testimony to the truth and nature of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the biblical authors in their distinct lack of errors common to the thinking of the first century.
Q: Would you please explain in more detail what you teach about how a person can be saved?
A: We believe that a person is saved from the tragedy of the evil nature that humans are born with in this fallen world, the sin [missing God's mark or standard] that flows from that nature, and the resulting separation from their holy Creator, only through the Savior and Lord promised from the beginning, Jesus the Messiah. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (Jesus, speaking in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 6). "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other Name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4, verse 12). "You shall give Him the name, 'Jesus,' for He shall save His people from their sins" (Gospel of Matthew, chapter 1, verse 21). The promise was not that He would merely save His people from the consequence of their sins (God will just "okay" us and bring us into His Presence in spite of our sin), but that He would save us from the sin itself -- would deliver us from ourselves. We do not believe that a theoretical salvation of cheap "grace" that merely "imputes" the holiness and perfection of Jesus to a sinner will "save" anyone, but that His message always has been and always will be, "REPENT!" [Turn, go the opposite way, be a completely different person from the heart], and that He imparts, as well as imputes, the righteous power and capacity to become holy and perfect to those who respond with broken and contrite hearts; and they are saved! What a message! What an opportunity! To exchange the rags of our humanity for the riches of knowing God and His favor upon us! What grace and mercy, and what a gift! It is absolutely the best news ever broadcast!
The most simple foundation we must begin to build upon is laid out in the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 12, "But as many as received Him [Jesus], to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name..." Today we hear much about people "accepting Jesus" to "get saved", but the scriptures do not use those terminologies. Rather, those who receive Him, who believe in His name, are taking the first steps and are granted the right to become children of God. In the same book of John, chapter 3, verse 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that "unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Today we are often led to believe that those who are "born again" have entered into God's kingdom, but Jesus said that a man cannot even see the Kingdom until then and two verses later (chapter 3, verse 5), He explains that a two-fold rebirth must happen for a person to enter the kingdom of God. So how do we begin to follow Jesus? How does one become one of His followers? A simple but difficult summary Jesus gave for what a person must do to be His disciple [a learner who follows and imitates] is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 9, verse 23, "...If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily, and follow me." To follow the Master, we must "believe that He exists, and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews, chapter 11, verse 6). When we believe and trust Him to such an extent that we recognize our condition of rebellion, a spirit in us which resulted in Jesus being murdered by others just like us (Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2, verse 23 and 36), we then see His blood on our own hands and we turn our backs on "self" -- we deny our selfish identity (who we think we are). When we reach this humbling and difficult place, we must "prove our repentance" (Acts of the Apostles, chapter 26, verse 20) by willingly taking up those things in life which will be the instruments of our daily death to self (see 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 31) -- yielding our possessions to our Master's purposes, as well as our families, our careers, our plans for the future; perhaps it may mean taking a lifetime to make restitution for wrongs done to others, or living in daily fellowship with, and service to, others whose personalities or habits "stroke our fur the wrong direction." In short, someone who has taken up their cross has given up their rights, their independence, and their self-determination. With this solemn commitment made, one must set out to walk as Jesus walked, to fix our eyes upon Him, listen to His voice, and do as He says, just as an obedient child does with its parent, or a trusting sheep with the shepherd. Our reconciliation to God is a marvelous and free gift no one could ever earn, yet it costs everything we have and everything we are. Note Jesus' further warnings about this in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 10, verses 34 - 39, and similarly in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 14, verses 26 - 33.
Salvation is a process, which the scriptures describe as happening at a particular time, as happening continuously in the believer's life, and as happening at the end when our race has been run and our time on earth is finished (Titus, chapter 3, verses 4 and 5; 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 1 and 2; Romans, chapter 5, verse 9; others). But salvation must begin with understanding the grace and gift of God and responding to it just as Jesus requires (above), and just as the first believers throughout the book of Acts, and right on into the next two centuries, responded. The scriptures identify over 20 different specifics, like faith, confession, etc., that save us because they all are a part of God's grace and power working in our submission, trust, and obedience to Him. Like the early Christians, we have little use for systems of religion and theology, and we do not regard anything that the scriptures associate with salvation as irrelevant, optional, or unnecessary. No true child-like disciple will dishonor his Lord and Creator with such human distinctions, "nullifying the word of God for the sake of [human] traditions"(Gospel of Mark, chapter 7, verses 6 - 9).
Q: What forms of baptism do you practice or accept?
A: Baptism in water preceded the Messiah's coming. While Jesus maintained this practice as part of a promise for future generations, it took on a whole new meaning upon His death, burial, and resurrection that it had never had before. In this sense, the baptism which Jesus brought -- this immersion of and by His Spirit into His own body, into the regenerating, cleansing of His life poured out in water and blood from the cross in His death, and which is the Power resurrecting us to new life -- is invisible like the wind. As a result, mere baptism in water often amounts to little more than an empty, perfunctory "rite" or "sign" in many or most of the institutional churches which still practice it, just as inventions like "raise your hand and pray this prayer" to "receive salvation" are in others. Our Lord and Saviour is far more concerned about the transformation of heart and spirit in a person than He will ever be about religious forms and protocols. However, this does not mean the latter is never of consequence because it can be a reflection of the kind of love and heart for obedience that we have. Because our ethos is to maintain the original practices of Jesus and His disciples, to walk in their steps, we strive to imitate Him in this as well. All the modern rationalizations notwithstanding, the word "baptize" in the Greek simply means to "immerse," "dip," or "plunge," and, just as the scriptures describe the disciples baptizing at Aenon on the Jordan River because there was "much water there," so the testimony of the earliest generations of Jesus' disciples all account immersion as their normal practice; even practicing it as closely as possible to the example Jesus set in His own baptism (cf. the Didache). Pouring three times is mentioned in this latter reference as a last resort, when immersion in any form was not possible, and since matters of outward religious form are very secondary to the purpose and matter at hand, we gladly honor such actions which flow from hearts striving after obedience in the manner that was possible in their circumstance. We do not see any reason, however, to take what was portrayed in only one account among the early believers as a form of last resort and practice it in normal circumstances as if it were the form of the Lord's own example and command in the scriptures.
Q: How could the early Christians have taught that it was possible for someone to lose their salvation? Jesus said He would lose none of those He had been given. The Bible says that nothing can separate us from the love of God. It would be horrible to think I was still always in danger of being lost even when I am saved. I would always be uncertain and miserable.
A: Jesus said, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:1-6). Can we fall away so as to disqualify ourselves from His Kingdom? Certainly we can, and we can see this in many scripture passages (for example, the book of 2 Peter, chapter 2, especially verses 20-22; or Hebrews chapter 10, verses 26-31 and 36-39). Jesus' own warnings in this matter are not idle (note Jesus teaching His disciples in Matthew 5, verses 22 and 29-30; see also Matthew 22:11-14 and many others) and Christians originally believed exactly what He said. In the last book of the Bible, Revelation, we see again and again, in the letters to the assemblies in seven cities, the need to remain in Christ or be lost in the end. They are exhorted to overcome and receive life. To those in Sardis, Jesus specifically says that the one who overcomes will not be blotted out of the Book of Life. To be blotted out, one had to be in the book to begin with. They were placed in the book when they were placed in Christ, but if they refuse to walk with Him, they can and will be blotted out! So then, having been restored to right relationship to God, should we fear falling from His grace? In other words, is our salvation insecure?
The scriptures are clear that it is inevitable that humans who are genuinely born again and striving to follow the Lord will sometimes stumble and sin as we go through this life. But the scriptures are also clear that we are not to live in that manner or continue in it willfully. A genuinely new creature has genuine power to overcome (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Corinthians 10:6-13). God has made a way for us to be continuously cleansed from those sins which are fallen into along the way as we walk with Him; and when we have stumbled we are expected to repent and return. A true child of God must repent, confess his / her sin, and be forgiven by God's grace. When we confess and repent He is faithful to cleanse us. This is the message of the first and second chapters of the book of 1 John, specifically chapter 1, verses 8-9, and chapter 2, verses 1-2. After sharply rebuking the Corinthians for their lifestyle practices in his first letter, the apostle Paul responds to their apparent repentance by saying, "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death" (2 Corinthians 7:9-10). James also writes, "Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord and He will lift you up" (James 4:7-10).
A walk of loving obedience with Jesus, while not always easy, is not generally a complicated thing. If we have been adopted into God's household, then we are indeed His sons and daughters! Now a natural son loves his father, and so desires to walk obediently with him. So, too, the Christian with his Heavenly Father. And like a natural son, the spiritual son may at times have little fits of rebellion or stubbornness, or otherwise walk outside of his Father's will. A natural father doesn't instantly disinherit his son when this occurs, and neither does our Heavenly Father. The natural father knows his son will repent and return to his father's heart, and all will be forgiven and made right; so, too, does our Heavenly Father know His children all the more (cf. 2 Timothy 2:19)! But ... if a natural son will not follow his father's heart, persisting in his rebellion, eventually this father will disinherit his son, or rather, the son will remove himself from his father's inheritance. The father's grace, his favor and love, were never "earned" by the natural son; they were his simply because he is his son! But if the son persists in despising his father's love, then he may well remove himself from its effects and blessings, even though the love is present and available all along. Do we fear falling from grace? Of course not! Just as a natural son doesn't fear that his father will cease to love him. But we also can reject the love and grace of our Heavenly Father if we persist in unrepentant disobedience. "If you love Me, you will obey My commandments," Jesus said. If we persist in disobedience then obviously we don't love Him -- how then will we "abide in [His] love?" "We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works lest any man should boast." We don't earn the Father's unmerited favor -- it is truly unmerited -- but having received it, we cannot and will not live in opposition to Him any longer [see also 1 John 3:6-9].
Q: Why do you frequently uphold conservative Anabaptists over Evangelical-type Christians and churches when Protestants have devoted so much of their time and energy to believing and promoting the Bible? How can Protestants not be right when they stand on God's Word?
A: We owe those in the Reformation a debt of gratitude for the great sacrifices they made to put the scriptures into the common person's hands. However, the Anabaptists were also willing to make the scriptures known at the cost of their lives. The contrast between the primitive Faith, which the first Anabaptists sought, and the values and approach of Protestants is probably best described by Peter Hoover in his book, The Secret of the Strength:
"To the Protestants, the Bible was the manifesto, an end in itself. Once they reached an agreement on how to 'properly' interpret it, they revered it and treated it with gallant devotion. They preached and persecuted and fought mighty wars in defense of the Bible and its doctrines. To the Anabaptists, the Bible was simply the book that took them to Christ [cf. John 5:38-40]. The Protestants found the 'key' to Bible interpretation in the epistles of Paul. But the Anabaptists found it in Christ and his Sermon on the Mount. The Protestants saw in Paul a great theologian, the expositor of the doctrines of faith and grace. The Anabaptists saw in Paul a man who forsook everything to become a 'fool for Christ's sake.' They found community with him in his martyr's death ... The Anabaptists lived to obey Christ. The Protestants worked en masse and waited until 'everyone was ready' to make changes in religious practice. The Anabaptists did, on first opportunity, what they thought Christ wanted them to do. If no one else joined them, they did it alone. The Protestants followed a logical course. Theologians, princes and educators planned what to do in a way that made sense. The Anabaptists followed Christ without making plans. That did not make sense. But it was the secret of their great strength."
This is by no means an understanding and approach to the scriptures that is a novelty exclusive to Anabaptists. The renowned Protestant apologist and scholar of Oxford and Cambridge universities, C.S. Lewis, quotes the Scottish preacher and author, George MacDonald, on this topic: "Herein is the Bible itself greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ 'in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' not the Bible, save as leading to Him." These contrasts in principled perspective and emphasis are as true of the first generations of Christians, or even more so, than of the original Anabaptists.
Q: You sound like you reject all of the denominations and organizations in Christendom today. How can that be right? Doesn't the Bible say the church is a structured organization with elders and deacons?
A: The scriptures do indeed describe a structure for the Assembly as it meets locally all over the world. However, from the very beginning, it was intended to be structure like your physical body has structure (of cells, muscles, tissue, etc.) -- the structure of a living organism, not an organization. When the Pharisees asked the Master about when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus wanted to make sure that they understood that it was not going to appear with certain signs, and that it could not be identified by a physical appearance somewhere, but comes within and among people (Gospel of Luke, chapter 17, verses 20 - 21). The heavenly Kingdom is obviously made up of those creatures, living today and throughout history, over whom the King of Kings is truly reigning. Scripture teaches that there is only one faith, one Lord, one baptism, and only one Body of Christ. If this seems unrealistic or impractical, it is only because the systems of men have taught us to think so wholly in the context of man's ways and wisdom, of business and government and philosophy in this world's kingdom, that we thoughtlessly try to conform God's vastly greater, higher and simpler ways to those of men rather than us conforming our will and ways to His. In contrast, the quite-different Church found in the New Testament and in the immediate generations of the Kingdom following that time assumed that it was required to function as one on the Master's terms, as members of one another -- a body or great extended family (hence the term "brother" or "sister" for one who was a member of God's household; 1 Corinthians, chapter 12, verses 12-27 and Ephesians, chapter 4, verse 25), no matter what problems and obstacles were being faced -- the Master and the Apostles had granted them no alternative. The reader should notice that the disciples never identify themselves as "members" of any particular Christian man, group, movement, or other human organization. When the Corinthians began to head in that direction, they were sharply rebuked by Paul (1 Corinthians, chapters 1 - 4). Yet despite this requirement to be just one body, they clearly recognized that they had no right to compromise the character or will of God to attain it (1 Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 17 - 19).
Local believers, and the leaders among them, met together and were identified simply by geography ("the elders of Ephesus," "the church that meets in their house," "those in Laodicea," etc.). The circumstantial evidence is strong that, in each area, those meeting in the homes, schools, or other places -- in Ephesus, for example -- made up the church in Ephesus; their shepherds functioned together as the elders in Ephesus. Similarly, those meeting throughout the rural region of Galatia made up the assemblies of Galatia, having a common functioning and character such that it could be addressed in a letter (the book of Galatians in the New Testament). We know from the account of Acts in the scripture that the called-out Assembly in Jerusalem was made up of thousands of people almost immediately. The historian Edward Gibbon, in his classic The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, tells of the church in Antioch at the second- to third-century timeframe as consisting of over 100,000 people. Remember that this was a time when Christianity was illegal and meeting publicly could be provocative or even deadly, especially if it were to involve thousands in what would appear to the pagans and Roman rulers as open, flaunted rebellion. Even if that had not been the case, where and how could so large a group meet for any gainful, godly purpose? Antioch's numbers could not have been accommodated even in most sports and entertainment venues in today's modern cities. Yet then there had been no "building campaigns," there were no electronic sound reinforcement systems, and their core values in fellowship rested upon a close, day-to-day relationship to their Savior and to one another (book of Acts, chapter 2, chapter 4, and Hebrews, chapter 3, verses 12 - 14), not upon weekly public shows with personal anonymity. Why would those professing to shepherd the Messiah's sheep today so often be enamored with weighing down the flock (Matthew, chapter 23, verses 4 - 5, and Hebrews, chapter 12, verses 1 - 4) with the very burdens which were once so unnecessary to the largest of churches?
Also, the interaction between churches in different geographic areas was simply one of spiritual accountability and service, not structured organization, hierarchy, or denominationalism. Innovations like organizational names, headquarters, boards, cardinals, and popes were still a long way off.
Q: Okay, so maybe there are some differences in scriptural application between the "Body life" of the early Christians and today's churches, but why does it matter so much? Even if these things could all be resolved and restored, it isn't going to change hearts. Aren't we supposed to set our minds on things above and have our eyes fixed on Jesus?
A: Indeed we are! But it is impossible to accept departure from the instructions God has set forth, in favor of the ways of men, if we truly have set our minds on the things above (Colossians 3:1-4) and have fixed our eyes upon Jesus (Hebrews 12:1-2). If our minds are set on the things above, if our eyes are fixed on Jesus, if our first love is for the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, then our hearts, minds, and actions will be renewed and transformed to accord with His will (Romans 12:1-2), rather than our own will or that of other humans. The principle here was taught through Moses thousands of years ago and repeated in the book of Hebrews (chapter 8) as an illustration to us, "...as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle ... [God] said, 'See to it that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.'" What if Moses had decided it really didn't matter so much? What would that say about Moses' faith, focus, and the spiritual condition of his heart before God? The apostle John sums it up this way, "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (1 John 3:7). Consider some of the contrasts between God's design and man's, and the spiritual consequences that these often-subtle departures from the original nature and function of the Body of Christ have:
|
God builds His one body God builds as the King of a Kingdom God adds sanctified believers to His body God calls His own by many names God makes sinners uncomfortable God sends His own into the world God delegates authority to civil governments God expects leaders of His people to have His credentials God raises up His leaders by His will and Spirit God openly disciplines erring leaders God unites families God appoints fathers over children God calls His own to make melody to Him God challenges youth God exemplifies betrothal God urges sober-mindedness and fasting God wants lasting fruit God deals with root problems God empowers His own against principalities God's own love His character and law God measures spiritual maturity God calls men to repent of all sin God works by spiritual authority God creates a living hope with living works God creates structure for an organism |
Man builds his churches Man tries democracy or parochial rule Man adds by institutional memberships Man identifies with a church brand name Man makes sinners comfortable Man brings the world into his churches Man feels free to intervene, even kill Man looks for man's Man chooses leaders politically Man excuses or ignores erring leaders Man separates families Man appoints teachers over them Man wants artists to perform for him Man entertains youth Man promotes a dating scene Man sticks with humor and feasting Man wants immediate results Man treats surface symptoms Man wrestles with difficult people Man despises them as burdensome Man measures numbers, giving, and contentment Man makes excuses and allowances for sin Man works by professionalism and popular opinion Man builds religions upon dead works Man subverts it to build many organizations |
Q: I notice on your website, and in a CD I was listening to about early Christian teachings, that worship songs are included that have musical instruments in them. There is no example of this in the New Testament and the early Christians knew it was wrong to use them, too, so why do you allow it?
A: This is probably a classic example of where something spiritual is readily displaced by something theological -- with religious regulation (cf. Colossians 2:20-23). As we should expect with any area of life that is handled that way, the flesh ends up in control rather than the Spirit and supposedly "strict and conservative" Christianity ends up in hypocrisy. Let's once again go back to the earliest Christian approach to this subject. The arguments made for "non-instrumentalism" as a doctrine today are entirely different in their basis than what is argued in the early Christian testimony. Nowhere in the first centuries do we have any Christians even mentioning such supposedly "biblical concepts" as believers being in disobedience to God for utilizing anything not "authorized" by direct reference or example in the New Testament. (We have yet to meet any Christians who actually, in practice, reject everything not found in the New Testament. Most of those who claim such things still encourage Christians who are not apostles or elders to pray with the sick, they meet in "church buildings," they drive cars, etc., none of which are found in the New Testament.) Instead, the early Christian position and teaching on this subject is specifically aimed at disassociation from the world, as was the calling and aim in much of primitive Christian lifestyle. As a result, they do not express theological sorts of teachings or objections against the use of musical instruments, but an appraisal of whether their use and effect will be righteous or will cause people to stumble. Now why would this be the approach taken? Quite simply, God is sovereign and unchanging. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8). God will change His manner of dealing with men (covenant), but His character and values do not change. The Sermon on the Mount illustrates this perfectly, establishing and fulfilling the heart of what had always been the intent in God's Law, not nullifying it. King David could not be a man after God's own heart if God opposed the great portion of David's life given to vigorous praise with all sorts of instruments and voicings. We would find God opposing it, disciplining him for it, and certainly not featuring the product of it in the scriptures with instrumental notations included (except as an example of sin). In the same way, God's consistency in character and values would preclude the use of musical instruments in His Presence in the future, yet they are explicitly found there (e.g. Rev. 5:8-10).
So what is the root and basis of the primitive Christian concern, and our concern today, in the use of musical instruments? It's not a concern that applies to the "sanctuary" of church buildings any more or any less than it applies to the radio in a disciples' home or in their car. It applies to everything that a Christian is, does, and represents. We reject a large portion of what is typically called "Christian" music, as well as most secular music, and the use of certain musical instruments associated with them, because they hold godless, sinful connotations and memories for us and/or the people around us. They have direct association with a life that was being lived outside of the life of Christ, apart from the Spirit of God. All of the primitive assemblies we are familiar with make an effort to avoid using types of musical instruments, or using any instruments in such a way, which will be imitative of "those expert in war and scorners of the fear of God [who are] inclined to make use of these instruments in the choruses of their festive assemblies," or as those "superstitious ones who are engrossed in idolatry ... inflaming to lusts, kindling up passion, or rousing wrath. The Spirit distinguishes the divine service from such revelry" (Clement of Alexandria). Indeed! The result of this is that we do sing a cappella (without instruments) frequently, and some assemblies will do so without exception. Yet as Clement also points out, "If you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame. You will imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God ... Nevertheless, let love songs be banished far away." Tertullian, in a similar reflection, is clear that, in light of the world's use of musical instruments for orgies and other godless indulgences, purity in the followers of Christ generally made it necessary for them to do away with musical instruments. However, like Clement, Tertullian also notes, "I will not deny, when listening to David, that this invention [strings] has been in use with the saints and has ministered to God." So often, those who take a mere theological position against musical instruments get bound up in their own external regulation, deceiving themselves into thinking they are being righteous because of it, and this is to the detriment of the whole spirituality of the concern. Many will make some theological determination that their regulation against instruments applies only to "Christian" or "worship" music, others will say it applies only to such music in a worship setting such as a "church service," and still others only apply it as a Sunday morning restriction without any reason other than human tradition -- it's just what they have always done or always heard. All such approaches do indeed "have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion ... but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh" (Col. 2:23). Among many of these very same people, worldly media can be found flourishing at home, in their cars, at theaters where they will attend the shows, or other such "non-church" settings! This is little more than theologically-excused hypocrisy. If the fruit of any regulation is, as Jesus called it, "swallowing camels," then it is useless to focus on "straining gnats" (Matthew 23:23-28).
Q: The Christian leaders I've read seem to have mixed feelings about the early Christians, sometimes sounding like they are really important but then disparaging them. I have also read that house churches are typically unstable. Why? Doesn't this show that God's blessing is on the institutional churches instead?
A: It is important that we be extremely candid here: the primitive Faith "once for all delivered" is relatively simple but it is not superficial or "user-friendly" -- it will be a poor "religious fit" for the vast majority of people, including those who profess the Name of Christ. Religious teachers generally appreciate and even feel some responsibility towards historic testimony, though they are naturally inclined to like and use sources at those points in which they agree with them, and dislike them where they evidence differing teaching. This is particularly true if there is a reasonable danger that the historic testimony may be viewed as having greater weight than the intellect, interpretations, and positions of the present teacher! Jesus was not kidding in the least when He said that a person must carefully count the cost before making the kind of commitment in life and doctrine that He was calling for (Luke 14:25-35). Obviously, looking over a spiritual smorgasbord of churches to decide which one looks best, or fits oneself or one's family the best, is not the sort of "cost counting" the Master had in mind. Jesus wasn't killed for His sweetness, popularity, comfortable manner, or conventional answers, but you would never know that based on what churches and their ministers generally represent today. His Apostles and those who followed them often died in similar ways for similar reasons. They were hated, as Jesus had assured them they would be, and it certainly wasn't for some esoteric theology, political position, or public protests (they avoided wranglings about this world since they were strangers and aliens here). No, even today, the applications that the first generations of Christians made of the scriptures are very discomfiting to people, believers and unbelievers alike. As Jesus pointed out, when everyone speaks well of you, you are in the same company as the false prophets, not the prophets of God (Luke 6:26). Genuine disciples of Jesus go with Him to suffer outside the camp (Hebrews 13:12 ff.). Jesus said that few would do so, and indeed it is few -- "let God be true and every man a liar."
In our experience, there are four very common elements that make today's non-institutional assemblies prone to instability. It would certainly be incorrect to assume that their instability is indicative of a flaw in the New Testament pattern, or that the pattern is somehow irrelevant "in today's world." No, we are commanded to retain the primitive pattern because, unlike human creations, it was given as a basis for excellence that would be applicable all over the world for all time. Causes and corrections to common departures from that pattern, including the four common elements of instability, are set forth along with related information in the link that is given in answer to the last question (below) regarding establishing new assemblies.
Q: Couldn't you think of a name for your group? It makes it hard for people to know what kind of Christians you are or how to refer to you. Others will probably start calling you something and you might not like it.
A: Very true, they might -- actually, they already have! But we know and trust that our Master will only judge us for what we accept and use ourselves, not for things other people dream up about us, or for us. Our desire is to please Him alone. We only describe where we live and meet, and Who we strive to follow, because that is all the identification that we find was needed or practiced originally. The Bible does not contain different "brands" of Christians. You'll never find any "party name" of any assembly of Christians in the Bible, or anywhere in the first centuries of Christian testimony, whether it's an organizational or denominational name, whether it's supposedly "biblical" or unbiblical. The only identification of the Assembly and its leaders in any place was by city or region, not by human leaders, creativity, emphasis, history, or affiliation.
Q: We are interested in developing a simple, primitive community of believers in our area. How should we approach that?
A: This question has been asked often enough, and requires a lengthy enough response, that we have developed a separate webpage to help answer it. Just click here to go to it.
A: To the charge of being catholic, we plead guilty! The word "catholic" means "universal." We believe that there is only one body, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (cf. Ephesians 4:4-5; 2 Timothy 2:19-21). We believe that the intent of the ancient summaries of the Faith (creeds) was primarily to educate new believers coming to baptism and to distinguish between those "rightly dividing," or correctly understanding and living by, the universal teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, and those who were "running ahead" on their own interpretations and ideas. While they are not inspired or sacred, they were a noble effort to "contend earnestly for the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:16 and 14:36-37). So, we do indeed believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Assembly, the one body of the Messiah which He purchased with His own blood. We see that the greater emphasis of the scriptures, however, is upon the Kingdom of God, existing beyond any reference to place and time, and which cannot be identified with human eyes by location or signs because it is within and among those over whom the Almighty reigns as King (see Luke 17:20-21). While being catholic, we are not Roman, nor Greek, Eastern, Coptic or Celtic / Anglican. When Protestant believers all over the world quote the Nicene Creed together in their churches, they say in part, "I believe in one catholic and apostolic church." We say "Amen! Now set about living by such a profession!" Seek first the Lord's Kingdom and His righteousness, living without reference to the human-devised polity of any church, institution or nation! While we are not members of any catholic organization, we gladly fellowship with those striving to be faithful to Christ wherever they may be found and we pray that all true disciples will one day yield their human affiliations and human traditions in order to simply and truly function as His one Body.
You sound like the Church of Christ
A: There are commendable similarities between some of the beliefs and practices of the first generations of Christians, and those professed in most of the churches that are associated with the various Church of Christ groups (for example, immersion in water as part of a person's regenerating initiation into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; celebrating the Lord's Supper each first day of the week, etc.). These similarities primarily have to do with forms and structures. However, even in these basics, and especially with regard to holiness of life -- as a separate Kingdom of priests who are strangers and aliens in this world -- the typical Church of Christ today is a compromise with the common, worldly models of commercial religion. The apostles taught that a love for the world and the things in it excludes the love of the Father in a person's life (1 John 2:15-16). As a result, in the Church of Christ, like the Roman church, a procedure like water baptism often stands in place of, rather than being in concert with, the Spirit's transforming renewal through a believer's death to self and the world. Like most Christian groups with a "conservative" history, Church of Christ organizations believe themselves to be thoroughly scriptural and led by the Holy Spirit, of course, and many are renowned for the attitude (sometimes kept under wraps) that it is their group or movement which is really the "one true church." Like most moderns, though, they are "based on the Bible" in much the same way that movies are often "based on" a classic book -- they tend to retain only those elements which they find suitable. The rest of the teachings and practices originally found in the Messiah and His apostles, and exemplified among the earliest generations of disciples, are excused as irrelevant to the purposes or interpretations of the group, or to the culture they prefer to be part of in the world surrounding them. As a result, the Church of Christ has ceased to be a "restoration movement" as they claim (cf. Jeremiah 6:13-21). This is necessarily a generalization and there is considerable variance between churches and even more variance between individuals. While we are not members of any of the factions within the COC, we gladly fellowship with those striving to be faithful to the Messiah wherever they may be found and we pray that all true disciples will one day yield their human affiliations and human traditions in order to simply function as His one Body.
A: There are substantial parallels between the history and lifestyle teachings of some of the conservative Anabaptists and those of the first generations of Christians. In their founding during the 16th- and 17th-centuries, the Anabaptists were known for fiery preaching on matters like explicit obedience, living a holy life, separation of Church and State (two distinct kingdoms), non-resistance, etc., in much the same way as the early Christians were. And, like the early Christians, they endured great suffering and death for it -- but at the hands of other professing Christians, both Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders, in particular. How we wish to recapture and maintain the Life found among those early Anabaptists! However, there are two foundational areas in which Anabaptists have not restored or maintained the ethos of the first Christian congregations:
1) The vast majority of Anabaptists today have allowed some of their spiritual structures, in matters such as the sacraments, to wander off into the human traditions or preferences of their group rather than maintaining them in their original form. In many of today's groups this has resulted in the "watering down" even of the original Anabaptist teachings into a more nominal, Evangelical-type fluff.
2) The excellent desire for separation from the world has often been practiced with a focus on the flesh rather than the Spirit, resulting in little evangelistic impact, a high regard for ethnicity and group identification (1 Cor. 1-3), and divisions over "how separate" or distinct they could demonstrate they were to each other by minutiae (hooks-n-eyes instead of buttons on a coat, details of how beards are worn or trimmed, etc.).
This is necessarily a generalization, of course, and there is considerable variance between churches and even more variance between individuals. While we are not members of any Anabaptist faction, we gladly fellowship with those striving to be faithful to Christ wherever they may be found and we pray that all true disciples will one day yield their human affiliations, names, and human traditions in order to simply function as His one Body.