Originally they may have been meant to fill in details where the New Testament seemed strangely silent. Perhaps they began as temporary supports that, in time, became part of the building. Or maybe they were practical applications of principles, but after a while, the principles were lost, though the practices persisted.
This article is to be pondered, carefully tasted and tested, not swallowed in a gulp. As Paul reminds us: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21). Please keep the kernels and gently blow the chaff away.
It should be noted that we are not only warned in Revelation 22 of the danger of taking away from, but also of adding to the words of the Book (see vv. 18-19). Although this likely refers to the the book of the Revelation, the capstone to Scripture, surely it is also true of the whole Volume.
It is not that we are forbidden to be innovative in our Christian service. The lord who went away told his servants to invest what he had given them, but did not tell them how to do it (see Mt 25:14-30). It was intended that they use initiative and when one did not, the lord thought it unforgivable. But what we are forbidden to do is what the Jewish religious leaders did: “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt 15:9).
POST-CONVERSION WAITING TIME
Yes, we know that those who confessed Christ in the early years of the Church were baptized the same day, if possible. Yes, Saul had the longest wait—three days, was it? But times have changed (an argument that raises red flags were others to use it to justify a modified model of the church). In the early church, the argument continues, there was persecution, and that kept out the hypocrites.
That doesn’t work, on several counts. First, the early believers surely understood what the Lord meant when He commanded the same people who preached the gospel to also baptize those who believed. It was a command “to the end of the age” and there are no disclaimers for different times or conditions.
Second, we have the interesting juxtaposition of two stories in Acts 8. In the first, “Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip…” Well, you know what happened. He wanted to buy some power from the apostles and Peter’s rebuke is most severe. Was Simon saved? He certainly exposed his true motives, and this after he was baptized (see vv. 13-24).
I made sure to quote the phrase showing that Philip was privy to all this. You would think it would have helped him develop a similar argument that has turned baptism from an act based on confession to one based on a sustained period of the professor’s performance. But the next story (a favorite at our baptisms) shows Philip baptizing the eunuch within seconds of his confession, a confession that might raise eyebrows today as being hardly comprehensive enough.
But what about children? I agree there may be reasons for caution in certain situations. I only want to underline the biblical pattern of immediate baptism, and to plead for a rethinking of the sometimes years of waiting that have become the norm. It is, I think, a poor precedent to encourage young believers in obedience to Christ by explaining to them that we are going to wait for a few years to act on this simple command of the Lord. Why should we be surprised when procrastination becomes a way of life rather than immediate obedience to the Lord’s desires?
ORDER AT THE SUPPER
Anyone who had read their New Testament carefully will know there is no description of the way the early believers held the Lord’s Supper. We do have some details of the first Supper: foot washing, teaching, a Passover, thanks given for the bread and the cup, followed by communion by partaking of the bread and cup. A hymn was sung, and they left the building.
We know that foot washing is generally to be a spiritual ministry exercised by the Lord’s people. And the Passover was to be the last (why it is frequently called the Last Supper), since “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor 5:7). Even if some Jewish believers continued this practice, it was a household commemoration, not a corporate one.
We must have the purpose of this commemorative Supper clear: “this do” said the Lord, “in remembrance of Me” (11:24). We are to “show [declare] the Lord’s death till He comes” (v. 26). And first being self-examined, each one is to “eat of that bread, and drink of that cup,” and in this way discern the Lord’s body.
We should also have the order clear: women and men both functioning as priests to God, with direct access to express their worship in spirit as individuals before Him in the Holiest. It has been misleading to say “the brethren are exercising their priesthood” as if the sisters don’t. But the men are to be prepared to speak representatively and therefore audibly, and the women should be prepared to be stewards of the coverings while expressing their worship directly to the Lord.
Doing things “in order” does not, however, mean some kind of preset regimen. We should not necessarily know the moment to instinctively reach for our hymnbooks, or be able to lip-synch a brother’s prayers. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor 3:17).
Is it time to rediscover what this means? I’m old enough to remember when the Lord’s Supper was the only thing scheduled for the Lord’s Day morning so they were free to continue as long as the saints were overflowing with worship. It was common to hear weeping in deep gratitude for salvation. One old saint walked about as he prayed, waving his arms like a windmill. But his often repeated, “We tank dee…” glowed with the coals from the altar and the incense was sweet.
We have some wonderful books filled with suggestions on worship and the Lord’s Supper. But let us not forget that there are no formulations in Scripture for the way the Lord’s Supper is to unfold. Letter is no substitute for spirit.
ACTS 2:42 AN EARLY CHURCH BULLETIN?
Did the early church have a mid-week prayer meeting? I think they did. But they often seemed to have beginning of the week prayer meetings too, and end of the week prayer meetings as well. While they may have had formalized prayer times, it seems they responded to the regular and pressing needs by times of spontaneous gatherings for prayer.
There was a time of prayer after the disciples were released from the council (Acts 4:24-31) and a prayer meeting called regarding Peter’s imprisonment (12:5). Rather than having 30 minutes of prayer together each week, we read phrases like “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication” (1:14) and “we will give ourselves continually to prayer” (6:4) and “prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God” (12:5). They were “continuing instant in prayer” (Rom 12:12), and “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit…with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints” (Eph 6:18). Constant battle meant constant prayer. It was no option.
It wasn’t so long ago that an ordinary week for my hometown assembly included the following: Sunday afternoon S.S teachers’ prayer time (the Sunday School had 250 kids); Sunday evening prayer time before the preaching of the gospel; a Ladies’ missionary prayer group, a young people’s prayer time, a men’s Saturday morning prayer time, oh yes, and a mid-week prayer meeting as well. Those were the days when one assembly blossomed into four. Could there possibly be a connection?
THE EVOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
Have you carefully considered what the NT says about commendation? There are of course verses that have to do with letters of recommendation, used by Christians traveling from one area to another and seeking fellowship there (this would include Rom 16:1; the discussions in 2 Cor chapters 3, 5, 10 and 12).
Then there are a few passages where people are commended to God for His care, especially elders (see Acts 14:23; 20:32). This seemed to be an act of particular prayer, asking the Lord for His supernatural care upon these elders or others who were presented to God in prayer. There are a few passages that discuss what we refer to as commendation, that is, the vetting process for those who have expressed their exercise to spend their full time in Christian work. In Acts 13, we have the sending away of Paul and Barnabas into a wider sphere of Christian service. They, along with three other teachers, had been ministering in the assembly at Antioch. Here is the account of the process, taking, it seems, less than 24 hours:
“As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia…” (vv. 2-4).
Is that how we do it today? Some of those men who are ministering responsibly and acceptably in the local assembly are called by the Holy Spirit to wider service. Therefore they are loosed from the local church to be directed by Him in the work of the Lord. Surely there must be more!
Let’s look at the “commendation” of Timothy in Acts 16. “Then [Paul] came to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him…” (vv 1-3). Apart from his circumcision (due to special circumstances), that seems to be the whole story. Away they went, the rest of the chapter recounting their trip. Is it a solemn step? It is. Must those who go out be faithful first in their home sphere? They must. Should they have the confidence of the local brothers? They should. Would we see more laborers thrust into the harvest fields if those in leadership were fasting and praying, open to the directives of the Spirit? Most would say, without a doubt. So commendation in NT days was a simple three-part process: your work commended you to the people of God; the separating call came from the Spirit of God; the saints commended you to the grace of God. I can’t find any more than that.
THE “ROYAL ASCOT” DRESS CODE
I remember arriving at an airport where the brother who picked me up scanned my gray slacks, navy blazer, white shirt and conservative tie. “You’re not going to wear that to the meeting, are you?” he intoned. Only a conservative suit and tie would be, well, suitable.
There is an argument that we should dress as we would if we were going to meet the King. But is the King not there when we are gardening? Or watching over us as we sleep? Of course there is appropriate clothing for each situation, and each of us may think we know what that appropriate standard is. However, James 2:1-6 makes a serious point about judging people by their outfits.
“My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there,’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man.”
Not only must we be careful not to embarrass poorer Christians because they cannot match others’ wardrobes even if they wished, we must also be careful that we do not put off many unbelievers who are invited to attend gospel outreaches. James goes so far as to state that such partiality negates the command of the Lord to love our neighbors and adds, “if you show partiality, you commit sin” (v. 9).
IN CONCLUSION
There are other areas as well that seem to have evolved over the years, sometimes from a verse or two into highly nuanced and inflexible positions. My appeal to you is the same as that which caused the apostle Paul to commend the Bereans. It has generally been taught that the reason for the maintenance of doctrinal purity among those who claim to be NT churches is their return, in every generation, to a fresh examination of the Word of God “search[ing] the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). But have we?
There has been much dependence on the writings of good men who have written for us books about “NT church principles.” But surely these men never expected their writings to replace the Word of God as the final court of appeal for what we believe and practice.
In fact, one standard point always included in the list of “New Testament Church Characteristics” is the final authority of the Word of God in all matters of faith and practice.
We have all heard the jibe: The first generation of Brethren had the truth in their hearts; the second generation had the truth in their heads; the third generation has it on their shelves. I suggest it is high time we enjoy again the rediscovery of the rich and vital truths concerning the church directly from the Word, and avoid the danger of those things once “written in the margins” that have “crept into the text.”