1. NT Patterns (Apostolic Tradition)
INTRODUCTION: Suppose a newly planted, first century church in Alexandria, Egypt wrote a letter to the apostles over in Jerusalem. In this letter was a series of questions about church life:
What should we do when we meet as a church?
Why do we meet?
How often should we meet?
Does it matter where we meet?
What type of church government should we have?
What should we look for in a church leader?
Do we even need leaders?
Does it matter how often we eat the Lord�s Supper?
How should we eat the Lord�s Supper (what form should it take)?"
THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION: How would the apostles have answered their letter?
1.) Would they have written that each church was free to do what ever it wanted to do? That each church should just pray and follow the Holy Spirit�s leading? That each congregation should be unique and different? That they should be free of outside influence?
2.) Or, might the apostles have answered with very specific instructions? With a particular way of doing things? With a definite agenda? With very particular guidelines?
THE PROBLEM: A problem faced by all believers for the past 2,000 years concerns exactly what we should do about NT patterns for church.
�Should we follow these patterns?
�Are NT patterns optional or imperative?
�Are they merely interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
This problem is compounded because the NT has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning ecclesiology. Currently, it is popular to dismiss NT patterns as optional. Fee and Stuart, in How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, correctly state: "Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way" (p. 97, first edition). We are not to be monkey-see, monkey-do readers of the Bible. No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah�s example in Jdg 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture "explicitly tells us" that we "must" copy the patterns for church described in the NT.
Suppose we "bought into" the notion that NT patterns are not to be normative. Into what might this lead us?
1. First, we could construct a massive, opulent cathedral and post on its walls our motto, "Nothing But Positive Command Shall Bind Us" (that should really pack the pews!).
2. We could meet on Tuesdays rather than on Sunday, the Lord�s Day (this way we will have less competition from the mainline churches; we will be the un-church).
3. Next, we will meet monthly, rather than weekly (this will be more to the liking of the modern generation, which dislikes commitment).
4. We might also opt to have no leaders of any kind (no pastors, no elders, no deacons) since no where in Scripture are we commanded to have any. This will be popular in America, the land of rugged individualism.
5. Along this line, we could have absolutely no form of church government whatsoever; ours will be rule by anarchy (every man can just do what is right in his own eyes and we can fulfill Jdg 21:25).
6. The Lord�s Supper can be celebrated every ten years or so (we wouldn�t want it to become too common and lose its significance).
7. Since the NT does not specifically prohibit it, we can swell our membership ranks by baptizing infants or the deceased (1Co 15:29!).
8. Finally, new believers will be organized into loose confederations of Bible studies, not official churches (the NT never states we must form churches).
Obviously, this hypothetical "church" would be quite absurd. Yet, it would violate no positive command of Scripture. What would be missing is at least a partial adherence to NT patterns of ecclesiology. Most churches do follow some of the patterns of the NT, but not all. The question is, why not? That which is argued for in this study is a little consistency. We propose that the apostles had a definite, very particular way they organized churches, and they intended for all churches to follow these same apostolic patterns, even today. The following study is evidence for our proposal.
****In 1Co 4:14-17, why did Paul send Timothy to Corinth? 4:17.
What is the basic command in 1Co 4:16?
1. What uniformity of church practice is implied in 1Co 4:16-17?
In 1Co 4:17b, what was Paul�s way of life in Christ consistent with? It was consistent with ("agrees with") what Paul taught. There was integrity.
TRUTH: It is an engineering axiom that "form follows function." What does this mean?
How can "form follows function" be seen at work in Paul�s ministry as described in 1Co 4:16-17? Paul�s way of life (form) was in agreement with what he taught (function) everywhere in every church. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul�s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine determined his duty.
APPLICATION: Similarly, the apostles� beliefs about the function of the church would naturally have affected the way they organized churches (the form of the church).
POINT: Holding to apostolic tradition is LOGICAL.
QUOTE: J. L. Dagg, the first Southern Baptist theologian who ever really wrote anything, a founding member of First Baptist Church of Atlanta and professor of theology at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, wrote in 1858 that "they (the Apostles) have taught us by example how to organize and govern churches. We have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life . . . respect for the Spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest" (Manual of Church Order, p. 84-86).
****Who, in 1Co 10:31-11:1, did Paul want the Corinthians to "follow"? Why? 11:1. The immediate context concerned seeking the good of others, pleasing others, so as to be used by God in bringing them to salvation. The word "follow" (11:1) is from mimatai, basis for our word "mimic."
2. In 1Co 10:31-11:1, why did Paul want the Corinthinans to follow him?
This command for them to mimic Paul evidently brought to mind a situation the Corinthians were dealing with in another area (head coverings), and so he began a new topic of discussion in 11:2ff (see the next question below).
****In 1Co 11:2, why did Paul praise the Corinthians?
What does the word "everything" (1Co 11:2) mean? The word "everything" means "all that exists" or at least "all that pertains to the subject" (Webster).
Does this mean we all need to be tent makers?
When Paul wrote "everything" (1Co 11:2), what did he have in mind?
How might "everything" (11:2) apply to church order? It suggests that Paul�s intended application is larger than just the exhortation found in 10:31-11:1 (evangelism). He is now about to move on to a new topic.
3. In 1Co 11:2, what is the difference between "teachings" (1Co 11:2) and "traditions" (NIV marginal translation)? Do word studies. The regular Greek word for "teaching" is didaskalia (basis for "didactic"), but that is not the word used here. Here, paradosis ("tradition") is used! Thus, the NASV has "traditions" here instead of "teachings" (NIV). A tradition is "that which is handed down" (information, custom), according to BAGD, p. 615. Webster says it is an inherited pattern of thought or action. A street definition would be, "stuff people do on a regular basis." This same Greek word (in verb from) is used in 1Co 11:23 ("passed on") in regard to the Lord�s Supper. The point of a tradition is that it is supposed to be passed on, from generation to generation.
What do the words "just as" (11:2) indicate about the degree of their compliance with Paul�s traditions? They adhered to every iota; it was sort of a photocopy effect! Paul praised them for holding to his traditions "just as" (kathos) he passed them on to them. The apostles evidently designed for the churches to mimic the traditions (inherited patterns) they established. The particular issue dealt with in 1Co 11 is a woman�s head covering.
4. Comparing 1Co 11:2 to Mt 15:1-3, what interesting paradox can be observed about "tradition"? The same word (paradosis) used by Paul in 1Co 11:2 is used by Jesus in Mt 15:1-3 when He said to the Pharisees, "why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" Whereas Jesus blasted the tradition of the Pharisees, Paul blessed the Corinthians for following the tradition of an apostle. Jewish tradition broke the command of God. Apostolic tradition is consistent with the commands of Jesus.
Based on 1Co 11:2, what attitude did the apostles toward churches following their way of doing things?
POINT: Holding to apostolic tradition is PRAISEWORTHY.
****In 1Co 11:16, how did Paul quiet those inclined to be contentious about head coverings?
5. What does 1Co 11:16 indicate about uniformity of "practice" in NT churches?
NOTE: It is beyond the scope of this study to deal with the particulars of head coverings. The point is that Paul expected all churches to be doing the same thing. Just to realize that one was "different" was argument enough to silence opposition.
****Based on 1Co 14:33b-34, what was true in all congregations? Without dealing with this passages� meaning, notice how Paul again appeals to a universal pattern in all the churches as a basis for conformity.
6. What does 1Co 14:33b-34 indicate about uniformity of practice in NT churches?
****How did Paul chide the Corinthians in 1Co 14:36?
How does 14:36 constitute a chide?
7. How does Paul�s chide in 1Co 14:36 indicate a uniformity of practice among NT churches? The chide was for doing something different than what the other churches were doing. Evidently all the churches were expected to follow the same patterns in their ecclesiology.
POINT: Holding to apostolic tradition is expected to be UNIVERSAL/UNIFORM.
QUOTE: Jim Elliot, missionary martyr, wrote, "The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. I am further convinced that the 20th century has in no way simulated this pattern in its method of �churching� a community . . . it is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern, at all costs" (Shadow of The Almighty: Life and Testimony of Jim Elliot).
8. According to Php 4:8-9, how can a church get into a position for God to be with them? The Philippians were to put into practice "whatever" they learned, received, heard or saw from Paul. Would this not include the way we see Paul organize churches?
POINT: Holding to apostolic tradition brings God�s PEACE AND PRESENCE.
QUOTE: Watchman Nee in The Church And The Work: Rethinking The Work, wrote, "Acts is the �genesis� of the church�s history, and the Church in the time of Paul is the �genesis� of the Spirit�s work . . . we must return to �the beginning.� Only what God has set forth as our example in the beginning is the eternal Will of God. It is the Divine standard and our pattern for all time . . . God has revealed His Will, not only by giving orders, but by having certain things done in His church, so that in the ages to come others might simply look at the pattern and know His will" (p. 8-9).
****Examine 2Th 2:13-15. Since God had chosen the Thessalonians to be saved, what were they supposed to do? 2:15.
9. What are "teachings" (2Th 2:15)? Do a word study. This is the same word, paradosis, used back in 1Co 11:2. The Thessalonians were specifically commanded to follow, to hold to, the traditions of the apostles, whether received by mouth or by letter (whether oral or written).
POINT: Today we do not have any apostolic information received by mouth, but we do have their letters. We are to hold to the traditions found in those letters.
10. Many believers feel that while apostolic tradition is interesting, following it is never commanded. What does 2Th 2:15 indicate about this issue? Is adherence to the traditions commanded or suggested? Significantly, it is clearly commanded! Cp 1Th 2:13-14, 2Th 3:6-7.
POINT: Holding to apostolic tradition is COMMANDED.
ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING: Darryl Erkel has pointed out the "danger of making distinctive NT patterns a form of legalism wherein we begin to look down or distance ourselves from our fellow brothers because they don't quite do it the way that we think it should be done. We should always be careful to not give the impression to others that their church is false or that God can't use their church because they're not following Apostolic patterns as closely as we are. That is nothing but sheer pride! On the other hand, we ought to look for opportunities to respectfully and tactfully demonstrate that there is a better way � one which is more conducive to the spiritual growth of God's people � for the function of the New Testament church is best carried out by the New Testament form of the church!"
****What "traditions" did the apostles pass on in 2Th 3:6-12? The specific context here refers to gainfully working versus being idle and lazy, but the principle still holds true: the apostles generally wanted the churches to follow, to hold to, to mimic, their traditions (in work ethics, end time events, and church practice).
QUOTES: Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and of the first Baptist church in the Americas (1600s), believed that churches should strive for as near approximate as possible to NT forms and ordinances (Liberty of Conscience, p. 106). This belief led Williams to resign the professional pastorate and also to found Rhode Island on the NT pattern of a separation between church and state.
****Why, according to Tit 1:5, did Paul leave Titus in Crete? (cp. 1Co 11:34, "the rest I will set in order when I come", KJV).
Titus 1:5 � "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might strengthen out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you."
11. What does Tit 1:5 imply about uniformity of practice in the early church?
THE POINT: It is evident from Tit 1:5 that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted things done. It was not left up to each individual church to find its own way of doing things! There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition, that was followed in organizing the churches.
12. What gave the twelve apostles authority to establish patterns that all churches are obliged to follow? Jn 13:20, 15:20, Ac 1:1-3, 2:42.
NOTE: More will be studied about the Twelve in a later lesson.
13. Based on the above study, what can be concluded about God�s interest in the modern church adhering to NT patterns for church practice? It seems evident that whatever was normative church practice for all the churches in the NT should be normative practice for churches today. It was precisely these patterns of ecclesiology that gave the NT church the dynamic that today�s church has been missing for so long!
SUMMARY: If the Bible directly commands something, then we obviously ought to follow that command. Significantly, the Bible commands adherence to the traditions of the apostles. If, however, the Bible is silent about something (i.e., there is neither command nor pattern to follow), then we have the freedom to do whatever suits us (following the wisdom of the Holy Spirit). The real question thus is not, "Do we have to do things the way they were done in the NT?" The question is: "Why would we want to do things any other way?!"
FEE & STUART REVISED: Remember Fee & Stuart�s statement about NT patterns? Their latest edition adds a significant phrase, not found in the first edition. It now reads, "unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative way � unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way" (p. 106, second edition). Their modified position allows for the importance of holding to apostolic tradition.
CAUTION #1: Beware of making patterns out of things that are not really patterns in the NT. For instance, the Christian "communism" of Ac 6 was a one time event for a single church. It is an option for any believers of any age, but it is neither a command nor a NT pattern. The same could be said of Paul�s vow in Acts not to cut his hair.
CAUTION #2: Beware of making patterns out of silence. Some feel that not only must we follow NT patterns, but we that we also do not have the freedom to do anything that was not done by the early church. They believe that if a practice is not found in the NT, then we can�t do it; it is forbidden. For instance, if the NT is silent about using musical instruments, then we must not use them. We disagree with this approach. The lack of mention of a practice is not proof that the early church did not practice it! This negative approach is essentially a form of legalism and leads easily to a critical and judgmental spirit toward others. Instead of seeking to positively follow what clearly are NT patterns, advocates of this negative hermeneutic are known for all the things that they are against (anti-this, anti-that).
14. The Roman world is gone forever; what is the difference between holding to apostolic tradition and mindlessly copying everything seen in the NT (wearing sandals, writing on parchment, studying by oil lamps, wearing togas, etc.)? The key is to focus in on NT religious practices, especially (but not only) those that went against the culture of their day. For instance, if the Romans had electric lighting and if instead of using electric lights the Christians lit their meetings by oil lamps, then that should get our attention! By way of contrast, there was nothing religious nor out of the ordinary in wearing togas, so there is no need for us to do so today. Another example would be the use of guitars in modern meetings; since they did not use them in NT times, does this mean that we should not either? Since guitars were not yet invented, the real question is whether they used instruments at all. The word for "psalm" is psalmos and means "song of praise"; the original meaning of psallo was "pluck, play" (a stringed instrument), a meaning that persisted into the second century A.D. (BAGD, p. 891). If instruments were not used in NT church meetings, then arguably they went against their culture in not using them and thus neither should we. If, however, instruments were used, then a guitar would be perfectly acceptable today.
15. Read the chapter entitled, "Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete?" in Ekklesia . . . To The Roots of Biblical Church Life. What are some possible apostolic traditions that should still be binding on the church today?
1. The Lord�s Supper eaten as a full meal vs. a token ritual.
2. The Lord�s Supper eaten weekly vs. quarterly.
3. The Lord�s Supper as the main reason for meeting each week.
4. Interactive, participatory church meetings vs. a "one man show."
5. Mutual edification and fellowship as the goal of a church meeting vs. a "worship service."
6. Church government by consensus vs. government by command, elder rule or majority rule (churches are to be elder-led more than elder-ruled).
7. The existence of leaders vs. no leaders at all.
8. A plurality of leaders vs. "the" pastor.
9. Locally trained leaders vs. the seminary system (indigenous vs. imported).
10. Male leadership vs female leadership. (Church eldership is to be male, plural, non-hierarchial, homegrown, servant leadership).
11. House churches vs. church houses (smaller congregations vs larger congregations).
12. Meeting on Sunday vs. any of the other six days.
13. Meeting weekly vs. monthly or yearly.
14. The baptism of believers only vs. infant baptism.
15. The separation of church and state vs. state controlled or funded churches.
16. A regenerate church body vs. a failure to exercise church discipline.
17. Children present in the church meeting vs. being shunted into Sunday school or children�s church.
18. A community based church (daily fellowship) vs. one that is geographically dispersed (Sunday only fellowship). A community church vs a commuter church.
19. Church reproduction through the ministry of itinerant church workers (apostles, evangelists).
APPLICATION: What is argued for here is a little consistency. Most churches already follow some of these patterns, but not all. The question is, why not? This consistency is especially important since the apostles expected for all churches to follow their traditions "just as" they were handed down. Of course, Jesus must be the center of a church or none of this will work anyway. It would blow apart! As He said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing."
SUMMARY:
1. God directs by pattern (tradition) as well as by percept (teaching).
2. The patterns in the NT are to be binding on the church in all ages and places.
3. Apostolic tradition is equal in authority to apostolic teaching.
4. The bare essentials (the irreducible minimum) of a NT church are: a commitment to apostolic tradition, celebration of the Lord�s Supper weekly as a full meal, interactive church meetings, church government by consensus (elder led, not elder ruled), and home-based, home-sized churches.
5. Without Christ at the center of things, the patterns become legalism and death, a hollow form, an empty shell. We need the proper wine skin, but more importantly we need the wine. Both have their place. Either one without the other is problematic.
6. Following NT patterns does not mean blindly attempting to recreate Roman culture (like wearing togas, writing on parchment, lighting by oil lamps, etc.). The issue here is church practice. There should be obvious reasons behind the practices being followed.
7. Following NT patterns does not mean every church will be exactly alike (cookie cutter). Certainly there will be similarity in the basics (see summary # 4 above), but there is also freedom within the boundaries of the form (like in music, food, clothing styles, etc).
8. Biblical house churches are not nearly so program and building oriented as many traditional churches are. Because of this, some have mistakenly concluded that we are against organization. Faithfulness to our Lord and His Word necessarily results in a biblical house church that follows God�s complete pattern for His church. We are not to be institutional, but we are to be organized. Following the tradition laid down by the apostles means that house churches are to have definite leaders, regular and orderly meetings, active church discipline, and weekly Lord�s Supper meals.
PRACTICAL CONCERNS:
What do you do if you find yourself in a church that neglects NT patterns?
1. Do not get cynical, angry, nor bitter. Most believers are blissfully unaware of the importance of following NT patterns. Keeping the proper attitude and spirit is of paramount importance.
2. Keep quiet for a year or two until you get over the initial euphoria of having discovered a new truth. Take time to ground yourself in what the Bible teaches about the church. Calm down, and be sure you are clothed and in your right mind!
3. When you do finally speak to you church about this, talk privately, humbly, and respectfully to the leadership about your new vision/understanding. Do not expect them to agree with you, especially at first, and maybe not at all. Nobody likes change, and the leaders will have a vested interest in the status quo. Further, pastors are by temperament conservative and like stability. Frankly, some seminary trained, full time elders will look down on mere "laymen" (who lack professional training) and discount the supposed truths that they discover in Scripture.
4. If the church leadership does listen and agrees to consider NT patterns, continue to be patient. Work with them, not against them! As long is there is hope for significant change, hang in there.
5. If, in the final analysis, the church will not consider adopting the patterns of the NT, then ask them to send you out to start a new work. Seek their blessing. Do not be factious nor divisive. They are your brothers in Christ, not your enemies.
6. If they will not bless you in your efforts to begin a Biblical church, it is still important to leave quietly, not causing a ruckus. Doubtless your disappointment will be great, but it is critical to maintain a good attitude (1Pe 3:8-22). Remember that God is sovereign over all men. It is His church anyhow and He is not worried about a thing! Remember also that you have planted many seeds that may grow and bear fruit in the future.
7. Realize that not everyone is equally gifted to start or lead a church. You may be better served (and able to serve) by seeking out an existing church that goes closer by NT patterns than the one you are currently involved with. Just do the best you can as you pray and fast!
How can we determine what is and is not an intended tradition? The tradition of the Twelve will: 1.) Originate from the original Apostles, 2.) Apply to all NT churches, 3.) Cross cultural boundaries & transcend language differences, 4.) Pass from spiritual generation to spiritual generation, 5.) Have a reasonable, obvious purpose (it is not mindless aping).
BALANCE IS EVERYTHING: London house church elder Beresford Job has observed, "It is clear to me from Paul's writings that the practices passed on by the apostles have the force of biblical command (2 Thess 2v15, 3v4 and v6, 1 Cor 11v2, v16, v23, Ch 14v33b, v36-38), be they concerning people working and providing for themselves and not being idle, or the manner in which churches functioned (what they did) when they met together. And of course by taking in the whole of the New Testament we can piece together a picture of just what these practises were. As relating to church life and function I would list the following:
a. They met on the first day of the week. (And I think it is instructive to note at this point that this is the only apostolic practise that the early church fathers didn't mess with and change. And of course the reason is that it doesn't touch the actual nature of what a church is, and didn't affect their power base and teachings and practises one way or the other. It was therefore safe, and so they had no need to change it.)
b. When churches came together we see universally from the New Testament that they met in houses.
c. They had completely open and spontaneous worship and sharing together ("each one has") with no one leading from the front.
d. They had the Lord's Supper as a full meal, indeed the main meal of the day.
e. They understood that each church was an extended family unit, and had non-hierarchical plural male leadership that had arisen from within the church they were to lead. This eldership sought to lead consensually wherever possible, and was purely functional and not in any way positional.
FINESSE: Darryl Erkel has observed, "It's important to keep in mind that as believers under the New Covenant age, God does not always give us precise or exact commands of what and how we should always do things, but often chooses to give us general principles which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and some sanctified wisdom, we are to apply for the benefit of the church. Part of this may be due to the fact that God knew that His people would sometimes find themselves in unique situations which might possibly require a temporary shift in their practice. Thus, in His wisdom, God set forth general ecclesiological patterns and principles that the church would have to work out depending upon where they were and what threats confronted them."
This Article Courtesy Of:
[NT Restoration Foundation.]