Spiritual Gifts and the Early Church.

There is much discussion about the gifts of the Spirit that are active for the church today or whether some of the gifts have ceased with the Apostolic Fathers. Modern denominations are formed on the basis of this continuation of gifts. Revivals and massive gatherings center on the speaker being able to perform "miracle healings". How much of this should we accept as biblical and authoritative? Better yet, did the Early Church continue the practice of all of the spiritual gifts after the time of the Apostles?

 To explore this we first need to agree on our language. The "gifts" of the church are called "charismata" by Paul (although he will also call them "pneumatika"). This "charismata" is where we get the word charismatic. Today we are just as likely to use this word for a group speaking in special tongues or other miraculous manifestations or to describe the compelling personality of a person. The word "charismata" was used often by the Early Church but many scholars looking to defend their practice take every reference without searching for specific content. The Early Church used "charismata" to refer to God's gifts of material possession that were intended to be shared, the wisdom to be shared, and the help the strong could lend to the weak. Only once is a reference using "pneumatika"made in the Apostolic Fathers to refer to a spiritual gift (Epistle of Barnabas).

Here are some of the gifts that are associated with the modern pentecostal movement treated in light of the Early Church:

Apostles:

The Didache uses the word "apostle" to denote a missionary or an "appointed messenger". The document uses the words prophet, teacher, and apostle interchangeably for its instruction about testing them. The Early literature quickly began to use the singular expression of "apostle" to refer to Paul. Very early in the tradition the church began to hold the term to refer to activity located around the twelve. There is no suggestion of some succession from the Apostles themselves.

Prophecy:

This is impossible to treat in a paragraph without making sweeping statements so we will treat this in a later post specifically. However, here we can say that the early Christians saw prophets the same way they did in the Old Testament, they were a mouthpiece for God and proclaimed forth his "word". These proclamations were sometimes predictive in nature but were usually relevant observations based on the general revelation given of God's will to a specific situation. There was a sect of early Christians called the Montanists that were a prophetic movement following Montanus that came up around 172 AD in Phrygia. There is much made of the Montanist movement by pentecostal scholars. It is important to note that the "prophets" of the Montanist movement were predicting the return of Christ. They were repeatedly revealed to be false prophets when the return of Christ did not manifest. Even though Tertullian joined this Montanist movement in his later teaching, the sect was made distant from the Orthodox teaching of the early Christians. Again, we will return to this later.

Tongues:

Tongues as a spiritual gift were primarily a marker of the movement of the gospel into other nations and people groups. This word "glossolalia" has the potential of four meanings:

1. to speak a human language that one has not learned (Acts 2)
2. to speak a non-human language (1 Cor. 13:1)
3. to speak in unintelligible words that need interpretation
4. to utter sounds in musical cadence

Early references to speaking in tongues outside of the New Testament are extremely sparse. Irenaeus refers to the use of tongues as a move of the twelve and Paul in line with foreign languages, not at all like modern glossolalia. He also uses the term to refer to frivolous or silly speech as opposed to speech that is unintelligible. The lack of mention of the occurrence of speaking in tongues in the second century has been interpreted as being so common that it need not be mentioned. However, the controversy surrounding the Montanists provided the opportunity for it to be reflected on. The reason they were not mentioned could also be because they has ceased.

What was Early Christian Worship Like?

There are many discussions and disagreements on the form and formality of worship. There are traditional liturgical practices like the Greek Orthodox Liturgy that date back over a thousand years. There are also some that think their altar calls and "Gaither-style" hymns would qualify as "traditional. And then there are the contemporary services that lean primarily on music and drama to move the worshipper in to more willing acceptance of the topic for preaching. There are any combination or tweaking of any of these and most congregations would not hold firmly to any one of these approaches. However, the questions often arise, "What was worship like in the first church?"

The sources are not full enough to show exactly how the Apostles worshipped but there are early documents that give us a fairly clear picture of the kind of worship that was practiced in the earliest tradition. All of these practices were typical (as far as the sources point us) of the church in the first 300 years. So, what was worship like?

Worship was weekly

The earliest church gathered weekly for worship on Sunday. The day of the week was likely a celebration of the resurrection and a clear breaking from the Jewish practice of gathering on Saturday. The meeting also occurred pre-dawn and the sun would rise as the Lord's Supper was being shared. This would visibly and tangibly point the worshipper to the hope of resurrection that the elements were intended. This early meeting also allowed slaves and workmen to go to work (no weekends or stores being closed for these guys) and avoid unwanted detection from those aggressive to Christians.

Worship was Christ-centered

The earliest church celebrated Christ as divine from a very early point in history. Theories of this development taking decades are faulty, at best. The worship of the early church would focus on hymns that proclaimed Christ's deity. These were both encouraging and instructive. These hymns would be responsive statements coming from the congregation based on the statements made by the leader. These early hymns are basically confessions of faith in their infancy.

Worship was ordered

The earliest elements of the worship service were based on the pattern displayed in the synagogue. They were "word centered" in that the proclamation was the main event. All other elements were to encourage and illuminate the exposition of the Scriptures. The basic elements were Scripture reading, preaching, singing, praying, partaking in the Lord's Supper, and giving. The two basic movements were the service of the word and the service of the table. Throughout time these would be called by different terms but the overwhelming portion of Christian worship throughout history included both Word and Table. The Table has been treated here before and will be again so I will only point out that preaching was primarily expository. This means that there was a reading and explanation of what was being read.
A final note is on the giving, which will be treated more fully later. The concept of tithing is not in the early church worship practice. The tithe was suspended at the close of the Old Testament (which comes at the cross). The early church encouraged giving for the main purpose of caring for others.

What should go…What should stay?

Based on these insights from historical Christian worship it is clear that there is a great deal of support for our worship practices today and a need to make some major changes. A few include…

1. Make worship about Jesus: This is not to say that we abandon the Old Testament or any texts that are not explicitly speaking about Jesus. In fact, the early church was deeply committed to proclamation from both testaments. Rather, we could ask "What does this text proclaim about the need or nature of Jesus Christ?"

2. Make worship moving: Using the setting, scenes, and elements of worship to tell the Christian story are instructive and inspiring. The first church used meals, the rising sun, and other elements of worship to set a "mood" and display direct encouragement into everyday life.

3. Preach and Practice the Table: Churches that are not preaching expository (as opposed to topically) and are not calling worshippers to the Table weekly should have to prove (historically) why they have clearly broken with the apostolic tradition. To worship without the table is to do something other than Christian worship.

Wake up Your Faith...

One of the concerns facing the current condition of the Church is a lack of connectivity with other believers. We huddle into autonomous church buildings or disconnected denominations and close off our communication from other Christians. We also insulate ourselves from those outside our circles and we suffer relationally, as well as intellectually. The truth is that there is much to be learned and gained from our Christian brothers and sisters, both now and throughout history.

This is one of the many reasons that I am thankful for books like “Awakening Faith” by James Stuart Bell. This book is a gold mine of wonderful devotions from the Early Church period. Each page is a window into the faith that has stood for millennia. The Christian reading these daily offerings will be blessed, encouraged, and educated by those that have been so critical in establishing the foundations of the church.

The reader will find these devotions to contain enough of an excerpt to get the mind and heart moving but not so much that the focus is on the book. Topics are included, as well as biblical references to encourage some more thought on the topic being discussed by the Church Father. This is a book that will be one of you favorite devotions to have by you in the morning.

The only areas of criticism are that the writings being used in the devotion are not referenced. The reader cannot go and read more by this particular writer. I would hope to see this addressed in a second edition. I would also hope to see better indexing. There is some in the back but I felt that having a few paths through the devotional would have been nice (and simple enough). To move through the devotional by topic, by author, and chronologically would have been a vast improvement to the indexing of the devotions.

That being said, this book is well worth your time and money. You will be using it for years to come. If you are looking for a devotional that breaks out of the typical mold then you will want to consider “Awakening Faith”.

Zondervan provided me a copy of this book for a fair and honest review. This was not an effect on the review that I have written.

Early Christian Confession

"Whom no senses can reveal
    was made for us manifest;
  Who no ache or pain can feel
    was for us by pain oppress;
  Willing all things to endure,
    Our salvation for procure."
               ~Ignatius to Polycarp

Early Church Hymn

"Very Flesh, yet Spirit too;
    Uncreated, and yet born;
  God-and-Man in one agreed,
  Very-life-in-Death indeed,
  Fruit of God and Mary's seed;
    At once impassible and torn
  By the pain and suffering here below;
  Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know."
              ~Ignatius to the Ephesians

One...

Surveying the landscape of Christian churches and pseudo-Christian churches (there are more of these than we think) it is hard to imagine that at one time in history the church could have been called "one". The Apostles Creed dates back to around 150 AD and is an early collection of statements that are essential to Christian faith. Among these essential statements is a belief in "one...church".

Really?

Could a new believer be confessing a commitment to "one...church"? Could the congregation be reaffirming their baptism by confessing "one...church"?

How is this possible? And, more importantly, can we go back? Well, it is possible and we can go back...sort of.

Michael Svigel treats this very issue in his book, Retro-Christianity. He spells out a path to unity that can be embraced as always, everywhere, and by all. For Svigel there is unity through the essential marks of the church. And frankly, there is disunity when these essential marks fail to be present. He uses the confession of the Apostles Creed to make his stance, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."

Oneness:

The first essential mark of a church is oneness. Is the church that we are attending incorporated into the body of believers that are present always and everywhere? For some the confirmation of this truth is simply mental assent. They would affirm a connection but if asked how they are connected it would probably be hard for them to answer. The truth is that we have lost our paths of connection by becoming overly denominational. We have to work at overcoming some of this through fellowship and bringing historical connections into worship. Svigel says,

"Every generation should strive to bear out the oneness of the church by seeking unity between other orthodox believers and churches despite the ever-present reality of doctrinal and practical diversity." 

 This connection cannot be merely spiritual either.

"We must conceive of the church as having both a spiritual nature and a physical nature, without mixture, confusion, separation, or division."

Holiness:

The church is not perfect. No one believer is perfect (my apologies to the pope). But the church, as a whole, is a sanctified union. That does not mean that there are no physical flaws. Just as is true for individuals, the collective church is being ever sanctified into a holy existence. This is also spiritual and physical. Svigel says,

"Theologically, the church of the elect is sanctified (set apart), reckoned holy by the decree of God in light of the cleansing work of Christ and the anticipation of the future purification in the resurrection and glorification of the church. However, in this present time, the church is characterized by both the presence of sin and the process of purification."

Catholic(ness):

There are many that have warped the word "catholic". Some will not even confess the word in the Apostles Creed and instead say "Christian" church. I get the sentiment. But isn't it preferable to take the word back from those that hijacked it in the first place? "Catholic" is not a sect of Christianity. Catholic is the church everywhere and everyone that professes faith in Christ. Svigel explains,

"So when we confess the catholicity of the church, we mean the that the church as a whole share in a confession and a commission that transcend time, place, culture, and language. These also rise above denominational differences and theological distinctives. Every generation of Christians should therefore strive to overcome their provincial and temporal concerns and readily align themselves with the "community of communities" of orthodox Christianity."

By the way, Ignatius was the first to use the word "catholic" and by his use the Roman Catholic Church doesn't fit the bill. It has turned renegade and claimed for itself power that was never afforded it by the Christian faith.

Apostolicity(ness):

The tradition of the Apostles (the first "sent ones" of Jesus) is preserved for us in the Holy Scriptures. Every orthodox church will accept this claim. Where we begin to differ is how we build upon this foundation of Scripture. Each church is apostolic if it is faithfully recognizing the teachings of Scripture and recognized as in line with apostolic teaching by those churches that are also faithful to this line. Well, that is what Tertullian said, anyway.

Which brings us to my point (and Michael Svigel's). Where do we turn to build upon the foundation of Scripture? I would suggest a return to the writings of the early church fathers as well as subsequent generations. By this we can establish the historical authenticity of our message and have a stronger foundation to expel heretical messengers (my apologies to Joel Olsteen) or at least show would-be followers their break with apostolic witness.

It is my hope that we will return to the great gifts given us by our fathers and through responsible efforts live in the reality of one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The RetroChurch...

In our last post we asked the question, "How do we know we have 'real' Christianity?" To answer this question we must traverse three fields of thinking; theology, the Bible, and history. In short, we have a real reflection of the faith if we have presented God and His character/actions in an orthodox way. We have what is real if we have presented a biblical foundation for salvation/sanctification/glorification that is clear and verifiable. Also, we have a real faith if we have properly rooted and guided into the historical practices that were given for all by a "great cloud of witnesses."

This last sentence is where we have a tendency to say...wait...what?

Yet this reliance on history is an important and indispensable guide to capturing and protecting a reflection of the Christian faith that is "real". Without a faithful reliance on history you are not a faithful reflection of the church.

It is time for your church to go retro.

In Michael Svigel's book, RetroChristianity, he gives us a guide on discerning the influences of history. Let's face it, when I say that we need history in order to be "real", some not so good moments in the life of the Christian church can be conjured up. One may say, "there is a lot that we must avoid in history and by avoiding the bad the church currently looks the way we do." To be fair, we need to be aware and conscious when dealing with history. We need not take anything blindly. But we must not neglect the work of God through history by ignoring those that came before us. Svigel suggests these as a guide:

Some things Never Change and Never Should.

There are some things that simply should never change. The center of our faith is Jesus Christ. Not the healings of Jesus, but Jesus. Not the sacrifice (continually) of Jesus, but Jesus. Not the prosperity of Jesus...wait...okay that is just not Christian. Jesus is and should be the center of our faith. We can learn much from history (especially the early church fathers) on making Christ and his gospel the center of it all.

The story of our faith should be the Trinitarian creation (Father, Son, and Spirit all active in the creative acts), redemption, and restoration. Our faith can never leave this story. Our worship can never stop replaying this central drama. This is historical worship. This is Christian faith.

The markers (doctrines) of our faith should always stay the same. These markers come through the struggles and biblical wrestlings of our fathers. To leave our fathers behind is to say that we no longer need their voice, their thoughts, their fights. Sadly, many do this very thing. Some, even proudly.

Some things have Never been the Same and Never Will Be.

Still, some things can never be the same. There is a diversity among Christians today unlike any in history. We have different denominations and reflections on orthodoxy and that is not necessarily a bad thing. We cannot have the solidarity that our church fathers enjoyed. We cannot go back to that time and we should not seek to idealize it. What we can do is learn to embrace diversity. We can have unity in essentials while maintaining diversity (and discussion) of non-essentials. Without history we can (and have)...(and do)... easily confuse the two.

Some things Grow Clear through Trial and Error.

I do not advocate leaving the challenges of the present by blindly retreating to the "golden days" of the past. We are where, and when, we are. We have learned through the decades and centuries. We have grown through time. We must continue growing. But we can also keep learning through remembering. Many traditions and many time periods have golden gifts for us if we will accept them. We do not have to accept them all. We can continually be guided by theology and Biblical faithfulness.

As Michael Svigel says, "This is not returning to the past, but retrieving the past for the present."

Peanut Butter Christianity

In his book, RetroChristianity, Michael Svigel discusses the appetite of the current church-goer for all things inauthentic. We have been tasting something manufactured using the ingredients of post-reformation, post-Great Awakening, and post-revivalism faith for so long that we can hardly recognize what is truly authentic.

More than this. When we do taste the authentic faith of Historic Christianity as it was practiced and believed by our forefathers we quickly spit it out. We may even pull back from this authentic product. Svigel compares our reaction to that of peanut butter.

Most Americans today are not really eating peanut butter. We may think that we are eating peanut butter but we usually are not. Look at the back of the jar. Peanut butter is peanuts. Peanuts that have been ground up into a smooth form something like butter. We buy something smoother. We buy something sweeter. In fact, if most of us tasted "Natural" peanut butter we would probably not like it....at first.

But it still looks like peanut butter. It is still labeled peanut butter.

The same is true for Christianity. Current Evangelicals look Christian. They are labeled Christian.

"What I'm suggesting is this: over the last several decades, many of us evangelicals have become increasingly accustomed to a less "natural" form of Christianity. While still essentially Christian, many aspects of evangelicalism have become victims of "enrichment"   by non-Christian ingredients that are meant to enhance the faith. This "enrichment" has been done to make the gospel more convenient, palatable, or marketable. Yet as these added ingredients take up more and more space, the essentials of the faith are necessarily displaced."

 For us to continue forward without regarding the essential elements of Christianity that have been clearly evident in historical practices as they have been believed everywhere, always, and by all is for us to continue to accept a mere imitation of real Christianity.

"The time has come for evangelicals to reclaim the forgotten faith. However, this means doing something many are reluctant to do. It means reflecting on the past to rethink the present and revitalize the future. It means, in short, to think not just biblically and theologically, but also historically."  

We will continue in future posts to discuss a few ways that we can recover a more "natural" reflection of Christian faith.

Freedom from Independence...

The mark forever placed on those that are born and raised in the United States of America is an appreciation and celebration of freedom. Specifically, the type of freedom that displays itself in independence from another governing authority. Men and women of this country fought for it...died for it...and continue to defend it.

This passion for independence affects much of what is done in America. Independence is a cultural norm. It is a social expectation. We see it in marketing, in education, in entertainment, in technology, and in worship.

The standard form of Christian worship in America has been to gather as individuals...sing as individuals...have a sermon prepared and performed by an individual...and if we happen to take communion (depending on whether you hit the right day of the year) we take it individually. We are independent!

But this is not Biblical worship.

Biblical worship has a specific pattern that it follows. It has a form. This form is not arbitrary. The form is not dependent on personal creativity, the talent of the music leader, or the budget of the congregation. The form is Biblical, historical, and universal. This pattern and form does not negate our freedom. It upholds our freedom. It remembers our freedom. Freedom from slavery in the Exodus. Freedom from class, race, and gender. Freedom from the bounds of sin. Freedom from the ravages of death.

Freedom from independence.

In Biblical Christian worship we tell a story. The story of creation, redemption, and new creation. We tell this story with signs, drama, and participation. It has a beginning (invocation) and an end (benediction). It celebrates Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection in gathering around the table for Eucharist (thanksgiving). It demands response from the people through hymns, creeds, prayers, doxologies, confessions, and offerings.

This is worship that is Biblical.

This form and pattern of worship also unites Christians throughout time and space. We are in communion with patriarchs, saints of old, a gathering of languages, cultures, genders, and classes. This is worship that gives freedom. Not freedom to deconstruct and rework. Not freedom to explore a new way but a freedom to walk in ancient ways. This is freedom to be who we were created to be. This is freedom to behave how we were created to behave. This is freedom from being on my own. This is a freedom that is shared by a people...a new people. To engage the spiritual realities through physical signs. This is worship.

True worship is freedom from independence.

The Locally Global Church

Many of us have grown up here around the "Bible Belt" of the United States hearing the phrase "going to church". In fact, church for me was always somewhere you went. People may ask, "Where do you go to church?" or "Are you going to church tomorrow?" It has simply become a part of our cultural language to "go to church".

Yet this phrase is absurd. The church is not located in space. Believers in Rwanda are connected in every way to believers in Portland, Oregon and Hoover, Alabama. They are not a different church. They are all a part of the same body, same family, same church. On this basis alone, the phrase "go to church" would be absurd.

But that is not all. The church is also not located in time. The church is not present only today, or tomorrow, or this coming Sunday. Believers that have passed on from life in this world into death have in no way, not one single way, ceased to be the church. In fact, they are more presently experiencing what we only get fading glimpses of. So, a body of believers that is in no one place and is connected throughout all of time cannot be a place that is visited. To say that I am "going to church" is an absurd picture of the Body of Christ.

The church is not a place, the church is a people.

However, the church is a local reality. The people that we gather with in worship and the people that push us to gain perspective on the eternal implications of living a life surrendered to Christ are people that we know and are, for us, located in a local body. Are we not to be especially connected to these local believers? Absolutely! We are to be spurred on to good works performed by faith in the one who works them in us as a body. This local body possesses the fruit of the Spirit (not individuals) and the gifts of the Spirit so that the local body may be an expression of Christ's presence. To be a part of this kind of gathering is special and should be praised.

But the local body that truly understands what it means to be the body will always, always, always point that local body to its connection with a global and timeless body. This is not done through once a year offerings (my apologies to Lottie Moon) or speaking engagements of missionaries. This is engaged in worship. Worship that understands the overwhelming reality that there in but one body. Worship that lifts its voice in a melody of praise that encompasses thousands of languages. Worship that proclaims God's Word with many tongues yet echoes in one single message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

At this moment the church has become locally global.

Here we have not merely "gone to church" but rather we have experienced the miracle of the people of God.

Such a Great Cloud of Witnesses

Our last blog post about reading Scripture in light of history ("History Glasses") brought up some very good questions in response. Two questions that surfaced regularly were "why?" and "how?" In other words, people wanted to know why history is such an important part of seeing Scripture more clearly and they also wanted to know how they could begin to tackle such a daunting task.

We have a far deeper and more rich fellowship within the church than many people realize and many churches (see our last post) refuse to acknowledge as a witness to various views. Hebrews calls this rich and deep fellowship "a great cloud of witnesses" (12:1). This "great cloud" that surrounds us allows us to "look to the author and perfecter of our faith". Some of us have grown up completely segregated from the church fathers and find them foreign and aloof. Many others approach them with skepticism and a Western idea that newer is better. We who live in the west have a natural predisposition to be wary of history because we can see their mistakes.

Christianity, however, points us to embrace history because the Spirit of God has been moving then, as now, to lead and guide us in faith (the point of Hebrews chapter 11). It is precisely because we can see the mistakes of others that history becomes more important for us. If we are led by the same Spirit, in the same faith, to worship the same Lord, then we might just be heading for some of the same errors. The fathers have given us a gift of seeing farther because we "stand on the shoulders of giants"(CS Lewis).

The barrier of how to go about engaging these fathers is a bit tricky. The immediate attraction is to pick up a history book and begin to read or purchase a paperback of the church fathers (here) and think that we can be in communion with them. These tasks may be helpful but they are not fellowship with the Christ in communion with the saints.

This kind of communion comes in worship, community, and mission. This comes as we celebrate, share, and serve together as we take into account the hearts, minds, and efforts that have come before. This means that pastors have a necessary responsibility to point us toward reflections, prayers, hymns, and confessions of the faithful. We need to be made aware where and when these meditations came from so that we can learn to appreciate them and even learn to read the fathers with eyes for insight. Our worship leaders need to purposely choose music that unites us with ancient paths and future ones.

Our faithful fathers of days gone by are not to be forgotten. They were, and are, the church. We owe much to them. We venture on a journey that has been laid bare by the feet of the faithful that have come before.

This ancient path is our guide as we walk into a glorious future.

History Glasses

I have spent much time in the typical Evangelical church. Through the years I have experienced many approaches to reading the Bible. These approaches may be formal or informal. A formal approach would be an "inductive method" where an observation is made of the passage in its context. An informal approach may be to ask "What is this passage saying to you?" or "God just gave this to me as I was reading this verse." No matter the approach it is important to think about where it may stem from.

Another oddity of my journey through typical Evangelicalism was a suspicion of history, especially Church History. Because of our present seminary patterns many pastors have a basic if not poor understanding of Church History. Most are completely ignorant of the Early Church Fathers.

This is important because the way we read the Bible is directly impacted by our understanding and approach to church history. In other words, the more ignorant the individual is of the Early Church then the more likely they are going to take an individual approach to reading the Bible. This is dangerous for people that are trying to learn how to read the Bible. In fact, we have a huge portion of the church today that is flatly confused about how to read the Bible. Where did we lose this ability? Perhaps when we lost our connection to our history.

The Early Fathers (and every subsequent Christian leader) can guide us toward a proper or Orthodox reading of Scripture. It is fair and right for us to ask how others throughout history have read this passage. It is also fair and right to limit our reading to the confines that have been set for us. This does not mean that every Church Father has been right. But it also does not mean that we should feel justified in ignoring the witness of the Spirit in the lives of others.

This way of reading the Bible is a bit more difficult. Although, you will at least know that you will not need to be corrected down the road as often. This approach takes a little research and reading in other areas. Picking up a good translation of the Early Church Fathers or visiting the Christian Classics Ethereal Library will give you a fast start to reading Scripture among the "Great Cloud of Witnesses". You can begin to build a collection of commentaries from your local bookstore or online.

There will always be those that prefer the easier road. Our legacy has been to take the Scriptures seriously. Do not be easily swayed by those that prefer the path of least resistance. Allow those that have given their lives over for their great love of Christ to speak to you. Let those whose whole lives have proven their seriousness for the Word of God guide you.

Beware of those that point you consistently to the "simple".

Oversimplification is the surest sign of ignorance.