The
Restoration of First-Century Christianity
When Martin Luther
visited Rome in the fall of 1510, he was appalled by the spiritual laxity
he observed – even in the priesthood. His dissatisfaction with the Catholic
Church would eventually lead to his challenge of that system, which
was culminated when he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of
the cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31, 1517. But Luther
simply wanted to reform the church of his day; he had no vision of leaving
it.
Professor Harold O.J. Brown has written:
“[I]t was not Luther’s intention to found a new church, but simply
to purify the old one. . . from the time of the Reformation there
were new churches – first the Lutheran, then the Reformed, and finally
the Anglican. From its beginning, the Reformation created new churches
as no other movement had suceeded in doing” (Heresies, Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1998, p. 311).
The church of the Middle Ages, however, was far too corrupt to yield
to any “band-aid” reformatory process. Though men like Luther, Calvin,
Wesley and others were perhaps moved by noble motives, they erred
by thinking they bettered religious conditions by establishing new
religious movements. These movements carried much of Rome’s theological
baggage.
Happily, however, by-and-by men would arise – both in Europe and
in America – who would grasp the concept of restoring Christianity
to its primitive status, free from the stifling encumbrances of sectarianism.
The ideal was to start afresh. Honest souls, in humble fashion, would
embrace nothing but the pure gospel of Christ, unveneered by human
tradition, and follow the New Testament as their only rule of faith
and practice. What a breath-taking concept it was – indeed still is,
at this very hour!
The “Restoration” Ideal
There are two basic attitudes regarding the Christian religion.
One disposition affirms that Jehovah, across several millennia of
history, meticulously prepared for the initial advent of Christ, and
the spiritual system – Christianity – that He would inaugurate. This
ideology argues that the divine format of the Christian system – as
such existed in the first century under the guidance of inspired teachers
– was exactly what God intended it to be.
Moreover, this view asserts that this sacred plan, as designed by
the eternal and omniscient Creator, would be perpetually relevant,
thus age-lasting (cf. Dan. 2:44). Those who advocate this concept
maintain that if the world is ever to be saved, it must conform to
the mold of primitive Christianity – and that the reverse should never
prevail (cf. Rom. 12:2).
On the other hand, there is the adverse theory which alleges that
the Christian religion was not designed to be static. Proponents of
this credo argue that aside from a few “core” components (e.g., the
fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He died for the sins of
humanity, etc.), the advocates of “Christianity” are free to alter
its forms and rites, fashioning them anew as cultural peculiarities
fluctuate. Supposedly, the Christian movement is free to experience
an “evolutionary” development. It is thus suggested that the “Christianity”
of today may be vastly different from that of the first century –
yet still enjoy Heaven’s approval.
Which of these concepts is valid?
Anyone with more than a smattering knowledge of Scripture should
know that the first view is the correct one. And yet, amazingly, the
second proposition is being advocated by an increasing number of people
– even a growing number within the church of the Lord.
It is not at all surprising that society finds the “new Christianity”
appealing. We have been brainwashed to believe that anything “new”
is also “improved.” The marketplace is flooded with “new and improved”
products. And so, many reason, why doesn’t the same principle apply
in religion?
The world of sectarianism has long operated on the premise that Christianity
may “change” as circumstances demand. Catholicism employed this rationale
as the basis upon which it adopted many pagan practices (e.g., the
use of the Rosary, the worship of the Virgin Mary, etc.) in order
to attract heathen converts (Mosheim, p. 105). Allegedly, this made
the pagan feel more comfortable in his new “Christian” environment.
The Roman Church makes no apology for the fact that she can modify
her doctrine as the times or culture changes. Many can remember when
it was considered sinful for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. Today,
it is not even a matter of conversational interest among many.
The Protestant sects, in actual practice, subscribe to a similar
“evolutionary” approach to Christianity. For example, a popular creed
book states:
“It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but
‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations
existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him
a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights
and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the
door into the church.’ Now, it is different. . . ”(Hiscox, p. 22;
emp. WJ).
Why is it different? Who made it so? Certainly not God. Rather,
arrogant men have assumed they have the right, and the wisdom, to
renovate the divine scheme of redemption. The very attitude is an
atrocity.
Not only has mainstream denominationalism contended that it is permissible
to change the original forms and ceremonies of New Testament doctrine,
it has even radically altered its concept of morality. Several decades
ago there could not be found a solitary religious body, remotely professing
Christian principles, that would endorse homosexuality. Now, the defenders
of sodomy are disgustingly numerous.
If Christianity may be re-designed with reference to its religious
dogma, why not re-write its moral code as well? The very idea is absurd.
Problems within Churches of Christ
The brotherhood of churches of Christ has become sorely afflicted
with the “change” mentality over the past several decades. More than
a third of a century ago, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett were
creating a stir in many Christian congregations with radical notions
of ecumenism, as advocated in their journals, Mission Messenger and
Restoration Review. At that time, however, these gentlemen were considered
to be a fringe-element aberration. Eventually, though, along came
Integrity, Image (now defunct), and finally, Wineskins. These journals,
in concert with several “Christian Scholars Conferences” on campuses
like Abilene Christian University and Pepperdine University, flung
the doors wide open to radical changes within the fellowship of God’s
people.
The drift has been gradual. At first, the concept of the “restoration
plea” was merely questioned – under the guise of honest investigation.
Then it was overtly challenged. Finally, in the waning days of this
century, it is shamelessly ridiculed by those who have thrown off
all attempts to disguise their ambitions. Some of our digressive brothers
take unusual delight in mocking the church, while their sectarian
audiences roar with laughter and applaude the barbs that wound the
body of Christ.
Rubel Shelly, of Nashville, Tennessee, has been one of the most vociferous
critics of the restoration movement in recent years. His speeches
at the Christ Church Pentecostal denomination in Nashville (April
13, 1994), at the 1995 Tulsa Workshop, and at the Florence (Alabama)
Spiritual Renewal Conference (April 19, 1996) are but a sampling of
this misguided brother’s hostile mood. Max Lucado likewise has fallen
into this 'change' mentality and has taken many a sincere souls and
comforted them with his slighted doctrines, likely under the guise
of being more 'spiritual' than the brotherhood of his origins.
The Biblical Platform
The fact is, the Bible teaches that when the Creator establishes a
system of religion, its obligations are to remain intact until God
Himself provides evidence that it no longer is operative. No one is
to presume to modify the divine arrangement. The Old Testament emphasizes
this principle repeatedly.
Surely no clearer example of this concept can be found than that
of the sad case of Jeroboam I, the premier king of northern Israel.
His apostasy from the Mosaic pattern is carefully documented in 1
Kings 13. Note the following:
He changed the object of worship from the invisible God to golden
calves, which were to represent the Lord.
The monarch switched the sacred center of devotion from Jerusalem
to Bethel and Dan.
Priests could be selected from tribes other than Levi.
A new feast was inaugurated to rival the feast of the tabernacles.
Modern “Jeroboams” doubtless would endorse these alterations as quite
refreshing; after all, we can’t be stifled by “traditionalism.” Jehovah’s
attitude, however, was radically different. In approximately twenty-one
passages the Old Testament refers to Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who
“made Israel to sin” (cf. 1 Kgs. 14:16). Innovation is transgression!
“Restoration” Defined
When one speaks of a “restoration” plea, several things are implied.
First, there is the suggestion that there is a divine “pattern” for
human conduct. Second, God expects conformity to that pattern. Third,
in the nature of things, rebellious and frail men will digress from
that heavenly way. Fourth, it is the responsibility of those who revere
the Lord’s will to restore, the primitive order, and call their fellows
back to the “old paths” (cf. Jer. 6:16).
There are numerous New Testament passages which stress these truths.
Let us consider a few.
The early church is clearly a model for us in that it “continued
steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). Why was that an
important point for Luke to make if the pattern of the “apostles’
teaching” is irrelevant? Moreover, the multitude of believers “were
of one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32), suggesting a unity of practice
in their Christian decorum.
Paul reminded the saints in Rome that they had been made free from
sin due to the fact that they had been obedient to a certain “form”
[pattern] of teaching (Rom. 6:17,18). Can such a passage yield any
sense if there is no pattern?
The Christians in Rome were admonished to “mark” (be on the look-out
for) and turn away from those who were causing divisions “contrary
to the teaching” which they had learned (Rom. 16:17). If there is
no pattern of New Testament doctrine, how could one ever be required
to “turn away” from those who do not conform to it?
The inspired Paul instructed the brethren in Corinth not to go “beyond
the things which are written” (1 Cor. 4:6 - ASV). This clearly demonstrates
that spiritual activity is regulated by the Scriptures.
The primitive Christians were warned repeatedly about “falling away”
from “the faith” (cf. 2 Thes. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim. 4:1ff). The
expression “the faith” has to do with a body of doctrinal truth. If
there is no doctrinal “pattern,” how could one ever “fall away” from
the faith? Note also that identifying marks of apostasy went beyond
so-called “core” matters, such as the deity of Christ. They concerned
things like the forbidding marriage and prohibiting certain foods
(1 Tim. 4:1ff).
Paul spoke of the “pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) which the
early Christians were being taught and in which they were to “abide”
(2 Tim. 3:14). These truths were to be passed on to others (2 Tim.
2:2), and men were to be charged not to teach a “different doctrine”
(1 Tim. 1:3). How in the name of common sense can men read these passages
and not know that there is a body of sacred truth with which we must
not tamper?
The writer of Hebrews affirmed that Moses, in constructing the tabernacle,
was warned by God that he must “make all things according to the pattern,”
which was shown to him at Horeb (Heb. 8:5). Do we, as recipients of
the “better covenant” (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), sustain a lesser responsibility
as we minister to God in his church – of which the tabernacle was
but an inferior type (cf. Heb. 9:1-10)? It is unbelievable that anyone
would dare to argue such.
John unequivocally states that those who go beyond the “teaching
of Christ” have no fellowship with God (2 John 9).
Conclusion
All of these passages, and numerous others, forcefully reveal that
there is a divine standard to which men are accountable. The grass
withers and the flowers fade, but the word of God, with its inscribed
obligations, abides (cf. 1 Pet. 1:24-25).
In physics there is a law known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It suggests that things proceed toward a state of degeneration. It
might also be argued that there is sort of a Second Law in the spiritual
realm as well. Men tend to drift; the pure frequently becomes contaminated.
Such was never more clearly indicated than in the current status of
the church of God.
This is not the time to relax the call for a restoration to the ancient
order of Christianity. We are truly at the crossroads!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
Hiscox, Edward T. (1890), The Standard Manual For
Baptist Churches, (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication
Society).
Mosheim, John Lawrence (1959), Ecclesiastical History,
(Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club) Vol. I, p. 105.
Also: Attwater, Donald, Editor (1961), A Catholic
Dictionary, (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1961), p. 363.
