Posted on 02/28/2015 12:17:20 PM PST by RnMomof7
How much is your church like the ancient church?
That’s a popular question these days—especially if you read guys like Robert Webber, Brian McLaren, Wolfgang Simson, or Frank Viola and George Barna.
Most of the contemporary discussion about the ancient church attempts to show discrepancies between what is now and what was then. The not-so-subtle implication is that there is something very wrong with the contemporary church. Blame Constantine. Blame the Enlightenment. Blame Capitalism. Blame the Fundamentalists. It doesn’t really matter. The only way to fix the church today is to get back to the ancient church.
Based on this premise we are told (by some) that the church needs to be more sacramental, more liturgical, and more mystical. We ought to light candles, burn incense, celebrate the arts, foster community, and avoid conventional church structures (like, especially, preaching). By others, we are told that we need to meet in houses and not church buildings. (And again, cut down on the preaching.)
All of this is proposed on the supposition that these practices characterized the ancient church.
Really?
Is that what the ancient church was like? And have theologically-conservative, Bible-believing churches in America gone so far off course that the twenty-first century church looks nothing like the early church of the first or second centuries?
Perhaps the best way to answer such questions, rather than perusing modern books on the subject, is to read a description of the ancient church by someone who was actually there.
Enter Justin Martyr.
Justin was born toward the end of the first century. He died in 165 as a martyr for his faith in Jesus Christ.
Around 150, he wrote a defense of the faith to the Roman emperor—called his First Apology—arguing that Christianity should not be illegal. In the course of his defense, he describes what a typical church service was like in his day.
I think you’ll be encouraged to see what was included in an ancient Christian worship service.
(Note that Justin referred to the pastor by the term “president,” namely as the one “presiding” over the worship service. This was likely done because he using terminology that a pagan emperor would understand.)
Justin wrote:
On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president [pastor] in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers.
When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the ‘Amen.’ A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons.
Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need.But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (First Apology, 67)
Per Justin’s description, we get a pretty good idea of what took place in an ancient Christian church service. Notice at least seven important factors: (1) Scripture was read, from both the New Testament (“the memoirs of the apostles”) and the Old Testament (“the writings of the prophets”). (2) The pastor preached a message (“discourse”), exhorting the people to obey the things they had just heard from the Scripture. (3) The congregation prayed together. (4) The congregation participated in commemorating the Lord’s Supper. (5) In their preparation for Communion, the pastor prayed and the congregation sang songs of affirmation. (6) An offering was taken in order to meet the needs of fellow saints. (7) All of this took place on Sunday, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
When I read Justin’s description I am encouraged, because those same things are found at my church too. Like the ancient church described here, we read the Scripture, listen to preaching, pray, sing, give, and regularly celebrate the Lord’s Table. And, of course, we also meet on Sundays.
When contemporary authors argue that the church needs to get back to the “ancient practices” of the church, my question is: What “ancient practices” are they talking about? The sacramental mysticism of the medieval period perhaps?
If you really want the ancient church, it doesn’t get any more ancient than the quote provided above. In fact, Justin’s description of an ancient church service is the earliest we have outside the New Testament.
So, should we get back to the practices of the ancient church? If this passage from Justin provides the model, I’m all for it.
History Ping...
“How much is your church like the ancient church?”
Well, if we are talking about Protestantism, then very little.
http://www.oodegr.co/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm
**Well, if we are talking about Protestantism, then very little.**
If your church is not following Acts 2:38 for converting souls, then yours is seriously lacking in some of the basic foundation, that is thoroughly detailed in Acts (more than once), and that was set up by the Lord and his apostles.
If your church is using the Lord’s supper as a means of salvation, then yours is teaching a practice that’s not thoroughly detailed in the early church history, as recorded in Acts.
“for a new generation of non-conformers”
Says a lot about the posts from this site.
“How much is your church like the ancient church?”
“Well, if we are talking about Protestantism, then very little.”
Our church is very Protestant, yet fits this perfectly. Please, try not to judge.
Excellent article.
LOL. The Roman Church looks absolutely NOTHING like the church of the Apostles. Any attempt to say otherwise is just a demonstration of ignorance at a supreme level. The first century church would not even recognize the Catholic Church of today and all its practices. Whether that’s ok or not is open for discussion but the fact it’s a different church than the early church is not.
Amen and Amen! And those who are truly called out by God (the ekklesia) will do just that as the "churches" we have today all drift farther and farther from the truth of scripture.
Notice the church Justin describes has no "priests" no "sacrifice "
I agree with you on the simplicity of the early church. Acts 2 tells the whole story. If the lost people in Acts 2 could be saved after what they did to Jesus, could I be saved if I believed and did the same thing they did? Yes I can.
“Justin was born toward the end of the first century. He died in 165 as a martyr for his faith in Jesus Christ.
Around 150, he wrote a defense of the faith to the Roman emperor—called his First Apology—arguing that Christianity should not be illegal. In the course of his defense, he describes what a typical church service was like in his day.”
If I wanted to find out what the meaning of the Constitution as written was, and to find out how those who debated and ratified it would conduct government business, who would be better to ask, one of those founders or a Supreme Court Justice who served some 50 or 60 years later?
There are plenty of direct statements in the NT and plenty of strong hints in canonized Epistles to know a lot about the “faith once delivered to the saints”. That is the faith that I seek, and there are tens of thousands in the US who practice that faith, not some paganized or Gnostic substitute.
In technical language such people are called “primitive Christians”. The first hallmark of this group is simple: do they accept what the Bible plainly says or do they accept what some later authority claims it says.
A good first few questions would be to ask:
1) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost keep the other Holy Days too such as the Sabbath?
2) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost also observe Xmas and Ishtar, or would they reject Xmas and Ishtar as being pagan, syncretic, abominations?
3) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost believe that man had in innate immortal soul, so that without a savior humans would still have eternal life, just not in heaven?
4) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost know that Jesus had conveyed a body of beliefs that was not to be altered and they only had His permission to elaborate and explain, not to abrogate and nullify.
5) did the Church that met on the first Pentecost know that Jesus was indeed going to return to earth to sit on the throne of His father David? That this means the royal lineage of David must continue to the day He returns? (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:29-30!, Acts 15:16, Amos 9:11)
Not a single mainline Church can answer these questions in the affirmative. People who are committed to practicing the exact faith of the Church that met on the first Pentecost will.
And they already had the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets!
Who said anything about the Roman Church? Read the linked book and get back to me.
Next to it would be the independent fundamental "baptist" assemblies that feature a local pastor as the schooled elder/teacher, with deacons assisting the orderly conduct of the organization. Except for the distinctive characteristic of one sole ruling pastor, they also would fit the description of a New Testament church, as contrasted to any denominational church arising out of trying to mend the misbehaviors of the Romanists four hundred years ago. None of these Protestant denominations can meet the Justin Martyr test, IMHO.
Well, if we are talking about Protestantism, then very little.
What are you, nuts??? Every Protestant church I've been in follows Justin's take on it...
What is telling in Justin's remarks is that there is no one waving incense smoke around...No one is participating in a Catholic Eucharist celebration...Mary isn't mentioned at all...Nothing going on with altar boys...Nothing at all is Catholic in Justin Martyr's church service...
And interesting quote from the link you posted...
It is to Saint Ignatius the God-bearer that we owe most of the information that we have, regarding the significance of the Bishop in the early Church.
Since Ignatius' information is known to be forged, your religion has nothing in the way of the significance of any bishops, anywhere or at any time...
And in many, many cases, it's pure deception...
What??? It would another couple hundreds of years before the Constantine religion would pass those out to the Church...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.