The Church Today In Comparison with the Church in Apostolic Times in its organization

The Church Today In Comparison with the Church in Apostolic Times in its organization THE CHURCH TODAY IN COMPARISON WITH THE
CHURCH IN APOSTOLIC TIMES IN ITS ORGANIZATION
E. H. IJAMS

“And he gave tome, apostles; and some prophets; and soma, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:” Ephesians 4:11-12.

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. Take heed therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28.

“Paul to Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:” Php_1:1. “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto yon the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” Hebrews 13:17.

Abilene Christian College is to be congratulated on having chosen such an important theme for its 1935 lectureship. I am sure it is good to make frequent comparisons between the church of the apostolic times and the church of today. The church of apostolic times is the admitted standard of church excellence. Beyond doubt the church of the first century had favor with God and power with men. The most significant chapter in the history of the world is the story of the rise and spread of Christianity under the Apostles of Jesus. The new religion which they proclaimed overcame difficulties and made progress at a rate never equalled. Beyond doubt it was effective, workable and adequate in practice as well as theory. If the church of today has varied from the model of apostolic times it will be well to correct such variations by an immediate return to the original pattern, the church of the first calvary.

SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS OF APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY In the first lecture of this important series, I have been asked to compare the church of today with the church of the Apostolic times as to organization. Before undertaking any direct comparison of this it is well to notice some of the striking characteristics of first century Christianity. A review of these notable characteristics will help us to appreciate both the form and the function of the organization of the church. In this connection, you know, of course that Christianity in its beginning was simple in form and spirit. It concerned itself with the fundamentals of life. Its doctrines touched principles and actualities. It grappled with such realities as sorrow, sin, death. It answers human questions about God, about duty, and the hope of eternal life. It taught the truths and principles needed to meet every issue of life. It filled human hearts with the passion for righteousness and the hope of heaven. But the Christianity of the first century was not only simple and fundamental, it was also practical. It met the actual needs of men. It emphasized the fact that the hungry must be fed that the homeless must be cared for, that the sick must be nursed, and that the sorrowing must be comforted. It gave clear emphasis, also, to the fact that people need to be taught the ways of righteousness, that they must have the advantages of discipline, exhortation, and encouragement. It undertook to make religion workable in the home and in the community as well as in the place of worship. Christianity was, and is, everywhere the means of meeting the practical as well as the theoretical spiritual needs of mankind. And we must not forget that this simple and practical religion that we call Christianity was wonderfully adaptable. It was simple enough to meet all varieties of outward circumstance. Because it was so thoroughly adaptable, it worked equally well in Jerusalem, in Corinth, and in Rome. Be'mg simple practical and adaptable Christianity was—and is—suited to all nations and all ages. It was not—and is not—based on local customs, nor does it depend for its effectiveness on fortunate situation of circumstance

It will do us good in these days, when self-appointed leaders frequently appear, to remember that God at first gave to the world inspired leaders. It was these specially prepared leaders who started the kingdom, taught others to select the best men among their number to be their leaders and teachers. Thus it came about that the leadership of the first century was a trained leadership. That was another characteristic of apostolic Christianity. The leaders of that far off day were leaders in deed as well as in name. And another characteristic of Christianity of the first century is this: it was a thing of principle, not a set of rules. Everywhere it gave clear cut emphasis to principles. Organization was important; but it was subservient to principle and purpose. Character and faithful service—soul saving were the big things in the religion demonstrated by the apostles of Christ. Organization in the early days was the means to the Divine end.

ORGANIZATION CONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE

Now having refreshed our minds in a brief way as to some of the outstanding characteristics of Apostolic Christianity, or of the church under apostolic guidance, we are ready to take note of its organization. And the first thing that should impress us is this: In apostolic times the organization of the chuich was thoroughly adapted to the nature of its character and work. As we have said already, Apostolic Christianity was simple and fundamental in principle. Its organization was also simple and fundamental. It was based upon principles, not on mere form or circumstance. We know of course that the church was not organized for honor but for service. Offices were created not for distinction but for the accomplishment of the Lord’s work. The organization of the church in Apostolic times was not only simple but selective. It combined the best features of the monarchial and democratic forms of government. It combined the heavenly and the earthly factors of religious authority. For instance, we know that the church had, and has a supreme head, Jesus Christ. He is the head over all things to the church. (Ephesians 1:23) He is, indeed, King of kings, and Lord of lords to all his followers. But Christ does not rule by direct appearance and speech to his widely scattered people. As our text says, he hath made “some Apostles and prophets” etc. to be his witnesses and messengers unto others. When those taught by the Apostles united for the work and worship they had apostolic guidance in selecting officers or leaders, who in these worshipping groups or congregations were called, elders, or bishops, or shepherds or pastors. Ruling over the entire body of Christians everywhere is Christ, the Supreme Head of the church. Over ihe local congregations were the officers we have mentioned-- elders, or bishops, or overseers, pastors. Local congregations also had deacons, men who gave heed to the temporal and benevolent responsibilities of the work. Then in addition to the elders, deacons, apostles, and prophets, there was a great multitude of members who were instructed to respect and to obey those who had the rule over them. All members and all officers under Christ, the Head, worked together as one body.

Everywhere in New Testament times, the apostles and prophets taughtthe same truths and the same doctines. Everywhere believers acknowledged the same authority, the authority of Christ. Everywhere congregations had the same officers chosen for reasonable fitness rather than personal glory. Everywhere followers of Christ were taught to respect and honor those who by reason of recognized merit, had the rule over them. This in brief is a simple description of the organization of the church in the New Testament times.

It should be noted that this simple organization combined the human and the Divine—the heavenly and the earthly. Though simple in form, it was wonderfully adapted to the Divine purpose for which it was designed. In its simplicity it was suited to all the varying ages and conditions of men. Its great simplicity and its adaptableness gives opportunity for principles to operate in all the work the Lord wants done. This combination of ultra simplicity and high efficiency in spiritual accomplishments is one evidence that the Church of the first century had its origin in divine wisdom and love.

HONOR THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH BY RESPECTING ITS ORGANIZATION

Now I suggest that if we are to keep the organization of the church of the present in line with that of the first century, that every Christian must be taught to respect the form and function of its simple but effective organization. Everyone who lives under the authority of Christ must respect the organization by which the principles of his Gospel are perpetuated. We must guard against the inconsistency of saying, “Lord, Lord” to Jesus Christ, the Head of the church, while disregarding the form of government which He instituted for the perpetuation of His church. Through Christ Jesus, the One unto whom all authority has been given, God has joined together the simple form of organization and the divine effectiveness of its function. He has wisely united the truth of Christianity with the simplicity of a minimum organization. We,.must be careful, therefore^ not to separate what God has joined together. If we do not keep together these principles which God has united, we betray the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and do violence to Divine wisdom. The moral obligation rests upon us to respect the form of the organization even as we respect the Divine origin of the church and the purpose for which it was created.

PRESENT AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY COMPARED.

Now, when we come down to the actual comparison of the church today with the church of apostolic times, find some departures from the principles that we have just mentioned. We notice, first of all, that a great deal of what is called “New Testament Christianity” does not appear to have the power that Christianity of the first century had. This fact suggests that there is something lacking. It suggests that somewhere we have missed the mark in our efforts' to adhere both to form and substance of the Christian religion. When we look for the cause of this weakness or inconsistency, we find some of it in organization. It appears in some instances today that, though we have the same offices as in former times, that we have not the spirit of service and leadership that these offices should represent. If your church doesn't have these offices and these offices only, can it be considered the New Testament church? Sometimes men are elders in name only. Sometime though elders in name, they are not apt to teach, or they fail to command the highest respect and confidence of the people within and without the congregation. Sometimes we find men listed as elders and deacons who seem to be content with “holding office.” They appear to be only mildly concerned about the work to which they are called. They think of the eldership as an office to be held instead of service to 'be rendered. It happens, therefore, sometimes that, we have the rule of the unworthy and incompetent instead of the rule of the humblest and best men in the congregation. Sometimes we find men in Scriptural offices who are self appointed. They are qualified in their own opinion but not by actual qualities of mind and heart. Thus, it comes about that instead of leadership of the best, according to the first century standard, we occasionally have the leadership of the usurper or of the childish weakling.

Another factor that has entered into the problem of church organization and unity within recent years, is the popular craze for “freedom.” In nearly every part of the world new and revolutionary ideas of government have sprung up within the last quarter of a century. These radical ideas go by different names in different countries, but everywhere they operate to pull down constituted authority and make every man a law unto himself, set up the reign of the “mass mind” —majorities. This popular trend in theories of government has affected the thinking of people in the mass and even members of the church. As a result it is not difficult to recognize here and there a spirit of revolt against the apostolic form of congregational government—a kind of spiritual anarchy. It is admitted that these departures are natural and easy under the circumstances; but they are regrettable. They are indeed worse than regrettable because they are exceedingly dangerous. If we allow such tendencies to go on toward a logical end, it will bring an ever increasing number of perversions and reversals of the Divine pattern of church organization. Departures from the true pattern should be recognized and corrected. We should count it a privilege to exercise constant diligent to keep the organization of the church in the 20th century fully in line with the principles that governed the organization of the church in the first century.

IT SHOULDN'T CHANGE OR ADD TO IT'S ORGANIZATION

It should be a joy to do this because the church is the most sacred organization known to man. No existing institution in the world has a higher origin—the mind of God. No institution is designed to accomplish a holier mission—the saving of the world. No institution is so peculiarly a channel of God’s blessings unto the sons of men. The church which bears Christ’s name and acknowledges His authority is the body of Christ. It represents Him and His glory and His love for mankind. It is “the light of the world and the salt of the earth.” Christ Jesus loved the church and gave Himself for it. He wants it to be holy, and without “spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” For the glory of the church Christ gave some to be apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints to the work of the ministering. I am glad, therefore, to have the privilege of encouraging brethren to respect and maintain in the church of the 20th century that same kind of simple, effective organization which the church had in the first century. I am glad for the restoration of both the form and the spirit of the organization which the church had in the days of the apostles. I am glad of the privilege or saying to you today, “Let us keep together what God has joined—the great and holy mission of the church and the wise and simple organization designed for its control. Let us honor our Lord and the Head of the church by doing the work He has given us to do in and through the organization which is designed for its good.”