Can We Carry Out the Practices
of the New Testament
Church Today?
In the previous parts of this
series we have studied a number of practices of the Church in New Testament
times.
1. There was a total unity of
local churches or assemblies throughout the Christian world.
2. There was no clergy-laity
system or one-man ministry in the local church. The Holy Spirit was the
intended leader of the assembly meetings. Under His direction all of the
brothers in the assembly were free to participate in worship, prayer, and
ministry of the Word. A small number of Christian fellowships today seek to
allow the Holy Spirit, rather than an appointed pastor, to be the leader in
their assembly meetings.
3. The Lord’s supper was
celebrated daily at first and then on the first day of every week. Weekly
remembrance of the Lord in the breaking of bread is observed by some Christian
fellowships today.
4. Apostles or their delegates
appointed overseers or elders to watch for the souls of the saints in each
local assembly. While there is no clear scriptural basis for appointing such
church officials today (in the absence of apostles and their delegates),
clearly there is room for those who meet the qualifications (1 Timothy 3) to
serve the Lord in this capacity in the local church.
5. Assembly discipline was carried
out, warning, rebuking, or even excommunicating persistent evil-doers, and
restoring to fellowship those who repented of their evil deeds. Today, a few
local assemblies still try to administer church discipline. However, all too
many today turn the other way and excuse sinful behavior by saying, "All
of us are sinners," or "We are not to judge others, or "God is a
forgiving God."
The Fragmentation of the Church
The practice of the New Testament
Church that is by far the most difficult to carry out today is having a unity
of assemblies. In the first century, the Church was not only in principle but
also in practice one body. No divisions had come in. No separate
denominations had been created. However, such divisions were anticipated by the
apostle Paul through inspiration by the Holy Spirit when he instructed Timothy
as to the possible need of separating or purging oneself from a mixture of the
true believers ("vessels of gold and silver") and the faithless, nominal,
superficial, professing Christians ("vessels … of wood and of
earth"), and joining with those who "call on the Lord out of a pure
heart" (2 Tim. 2:20-22).
The Church today, in its outward
aspect, has been smashed to smithereens! How we should weep and mourn over the
divided state of the Church today! How we should long for a measure of recovery
of that unity that originally existed among all of the local assemblies of the
body of Christ! And how, even more, we should long for the blessed, eternal day
in which there will be full recovery of the one body to its pristine,
undivided state!
I have heard or read it expressed
a number of times:"God has arranged the Church into many different
denominations so that each believer may select the one with the kind of pastor,
manner of worship, scheme of church government, or variety of activities that
best suit his/her needs or personality." NOT SO! By no means is God
responsible for the many denominations and divisions of the Church! Sinful man
is responsible for them! In my estimation, based on Church history, the
following are the most common reasons for divisions in the Church:
1. Doctrinal error. The
best example of this is the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. A large
number of believers left the Roman Catholic Church primarily in order to
reclaim the biblical doctrine of salvation by faith alone rather than by works
or faith plus works.
2. Sinful practices. One of
the secondary issues in the Protestant Reformation was the sale of indulgences
(deliverance from suffering in purgatory for particular sins) by the priests to
the people. Closer to the present time, there have been divisions in Protestant
churches over offering membership and even pastorates to practicing homosexuals
or unrepentant adulterers.
3. Human ego. Men (and,
with growing frequency, women) with the spirit of Diotrephes "who love to
have the preeminence" (3 John 9) sometimes break away from a church to
start their own congregation.
4. Differences of views.
Churches and denominations have divided over differences in understanding of
various scriptural doctrines, such as infant versus believer’s baptism,
premillennial versus postmillennial coming of Christ, and episcopal (bishops)
versus presbyterian (elders) versus congregational forms of church government.
5. Dissention over church
discipline. All too often, when church discipline is carried out against an
unrepentant sinner, there are some who think the discipline is too harsh,
others who think it is too lenient, some who think the person has repented,
others who disagree, some who continue fellowshiping with the sinner, others
who do not, and so forth. Satan loves such situations and has managed to cause
assemblies and entire fellowships or denominations to divide over such disagreements.
It is rather ironic that the
stronger the emphasis on the authority and divine inspiration of the Scriptures
and the supremacy of the Word of God, and on being filled with the knowledge of
God’s Word, the greater the likelihood of division. The reason for this is
straightforward:two or more gifted teachers, both believing in the supremacy
of the Scriptures, and both having invested many years in intense Bible study,
become absolutely convinced that their understanding of Scripture is correct.
If two teachers or groups of teachers arrive at quite different interpretations
of a particular passage or doctrine, both may firmly believe that they are
absolutely correct in their understanding. With certain issues, for example,
household versus believer’s baptism, the adherents of each view may be able to
practice what they believe to be scriptural without separating from one
another. With other issues, such as appointing elders or not, there may not be
a way for both parties to be satisfied at the same time. Sadly, the solution
often is division.
Are such divisions ordained by God
to make it possible for everybody to be "happy"? Again I say,
vehemently, ABSOLUTELY NOT! But how can they be avoided? By tempering
knowledge with a large dose of patience, self-control, and humility.
"Fulfill my joy, that you be like-minded, having the same love, being of
one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but
in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves" (Phil.
2:2,3). "With all lowliness and meekness, and with long-suffering,
forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:2,3). "Giving all diligence, add to your
faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance [or
self-control]" (2 Pet. 1:5,6).
Those who excel in knowledge and
understanding of the Scriptures, and who sincerely want to be absolutely true
to the Scriptures in their teaching and practice, often exhibit an
"Achilles’ heel," a particular area of weakness and failure:they
fail to accept that there may be other Christians—particularly those who
disagree with them—who have an equal (or even greater) knowledge
of the Scriptures, and are equally devoted to the Lord and equally sincere in
wanting to be true to the Word of God in doctrine and practice. There is
failure to "esteem other better than themselves." There is lack of
humility. There is pride and ego.
These failures and weaknesses on
the parts of gifted, knowledgeable teachers of the Word of God must be
recognized and acknowledged. Only then will it be possible for the disagreeing
parties to meet together on their knees, praying together, crying out to the
Lord to help them to resolve their differences and depending totally upon the
Holy Spirit to bring it about; and to discuss together humbly their differences
in understanding, each acknowledging the fact that one or both of the parties
is wrong and the possibility (as remote as it might seem at the moment) that
they themselves might be the ones who are wrong. If this were done with every
disagreement among Christians, would there need to be any divisions
among them?
What Are We to Do Now?
Given the present fragmented state
of the Church, is there any way, in faithfulness to God’s Word, to manifest the
truth that "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4)? A number of different ways
in which this is being attempted today are now presented.
The Open-Communion Model.
In most denominations of Protestantism liberty is given to members of other
denominations to "take communion." With some it matters not whether a
person is a true, born‑again child of God. With others the admonition is
given to partake only if one is truly saved. And with some the exhortation is
given for each potential participant to examine him/herself and judge before
God any unconfessed sin before partaking. For the most part, the unity thus
existing among members of different denominations is a unity limited to
partaking of communion, and generally not extended to the privilege of
preaching, teaching, leading the worship, or participating in any decision
making as a non‑member of that church or denomination. It can be a
confusing as well as unholy kind of unity since two branches of a particular
denomination (e.g., regular vs. reformed Presbyterians) may recently have
separated from one another over fundamental differences of doctrine or practice
(e.g., denial of the virgin birth of Christ or ordination of homosexuals), but
yet the members of each are free to take communion with the other whenever they
wish. Furthermore, there is relatively little church discipline carried out in
many of the churches, so that adulterers, drunkards, drug‑users, railers,
blasphemers, income tax cheaters, etc. who ought to be brought under church
discipline are allowed, under the dictates of their individual consciences, to
take communion along with those believers who are walking faithfully with the
Lord.
The Independent Assembly Model.
This is quite similar to the previous model, except that the assemblies in this
model exercise more care in reception to fellowship and often carry out church
discipline. Under this model, each separate assembly, even within a larger
fellowship, is considered to be an autonomous unit, independent of all other
assemblies. If a sister is received at Assembly A, she may be refused at
Assembly B. Or if a brother is put away from Assembly A because of some kind of
wickedness, he may be received by Assembly B. And then things really get
confusing when the saints of both assemblies get together at an annual
conference and all break bread together. By receiving all individuals who give
genuine evidence of being saved, are living moral, upright lives, and not
holding fundamentally wrong doctrine (such as denying the deity of Christ),
whether they are members of various denominational churches, other assemblies
in the same fellowship, or whatever, these assemblies are attempting to show
forth the truth that there is one body. However, they do this at the expense of
having fellowship at times with those who are themselves associated with
unbelievers or with believers who are not upright in walk or sound in doctrine.
At stake here is the question of whether the mere association with evil should
produce a bar to fellowship.
The Occasional Fellowship Model.
Under this model, there is a circle of interdependent assemblies, all in
fellowship with one another, rather than many mutually independent
assemblies. A person received at or put away from Assembly A is automatically
received at or put away from Assembly B. At the same time, a believer who is a
member, say of a Baptist or Presbyterian congregation, would generally not be
permitted to break bread with the assembly if he/she is doing the same at other
times at a church in another denomination or fellowship. However, in order to
give at least lip service to the truth that there is one body, and the
admission of all true believers in the Church at large, "occasional fellowship"
may be practiced. By this, one who may be visiting from out of town for a week
or two, who is known to be saved, walking uprightly, and holding right doctrine
about fundamental questions, will be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper
during the visit. In some assemblies this is broadened to include college
students while they are away from home, but who return to fellowship at their
denominational church when they return home for holidays and the summer months.
It is not clear whether this measure of unity extends to allowing the visitors
to preach, teach, participate in the worship services, etc. The same problems
discussed in the previous section of being linked with evil applies to this
model.
The Closed Communion (or
Guarded Table) Model. With this model the expression of the unity of the
body is provided by, but also limited to, having a circle of assemblies, all in
mutual fellowship with each other. We are enjoined in 2 Cor. 6:14‑18 not
to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers" or "with unrighteousness"
and to separate from any such associations. Further, 2 Tim. 2:20,21 teaches
separation from a mixture of the pure and impure, that is, from believers who
may be morally and doctrinally upright, but linked with either unbelievers or believers
who are going on in unjudged moral or doctrinal evil. This is supported by 1
Cor. 5:6,7 and Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." It
is also supported by the Old Testament pictures of leprosy spreading from one
person to another unless the leper is put away from the camp (Lev. 13,14), and
of one who touches a dead body being unclean for seven days (Num. 19:11). This
would seem to preclude the practice of "occasional fellowship." Also,
in contrast with the independent assemblies model, scriptures given previously
(Mar-April 1998 issue) concerning letters of commendation would indicate
biblical support for interdependent rather than independent
assemblies.
With this model there is a
somewhat more narrow unity and in certain ways a lesser expression of the
oneness of the body of Christ than with the previous models. However, this is
offset by (1) a more faithful concern for the holiness of Christ, and (2) by a
fuller, deeper unity. Let us expand upon these two points.
As to the first point, if assembly
discipline is not carried out when called for (1 Cor. 5:13), then each one in
the local assembly is linked with the wickedness and Christ, the Head of the
body, is also joined with the wickedness. If a person from that assembly visits
another assembly and participates in the Lord’s Supper there, then he/she
carries that link with wickedness, and unites everyone in the other assembly
with it as well. Those in the other assembly may not immediately be aware of
the link with wickedness, and may never become actively involved in that
wickedness, but as they have fellowship with Christ at the Lord’s table,
Christ’s name is linked with the wickedness and He certainly is sensitive to
that link.
As to the second point concerning
a fuller, deeper unity, with open communion or occasional fellowship there may
be effected a more or less broad unity among the members of the body of Christ.
However, that unity may often not extend beyond the sharing of the loaf and the
cup. But in the present "guarded table" model, any who may visit from
another assembly within the circle are accorded the privilege not only of
participating in the Lord’s Supper, but also of preaching, teaching, praying,
administering the loaf and cup in the remembrance meeting, and other privileges
of those who are in regular fellowship in that local assembly. In other words,
the unity that is expressed is more all‑encompassing in character.
Instead of giving a visitor the
opportunity of a temporary, superficial unity by participating in the Lord’s
Supper, it would seem better to work with that individual along the lines of
achieving a permanent, fuller, deeper unity. Thus an appeal might be made to
the brother, on the basis of 2 Tim. 2:20,21 and 2 Cor. 6:14‑20, to purge
himself from that mixture of believers and unbelievers, righteous and
unrighteous; or else to go back to his home assembly and see if there would be
a willingness to study and discuss the scriptural principles concerning the
Church. If his/her local assembly were to begin adhering to the biblical
principles concerning the Church as described in earlier parts of this series,
and if any erroneous doctrines or wicked practices that may have been a cause
of division were repented of and resolved, there might eventually develop a
basis for full communion between the two groups. This would mean that not only
would the visitor from Assembly A now be free to break bread (as well as preach
or teach, if so gifted) with Assembly B, but also individuals from Assembly B
would be free to visit and enjoy full communion with Assembly A as well.