Our final chapter, Chapter 19. So, what does all of this mean for us? Well, for me, it meant that I needed to face up to the early Christians. Perhaps that is something we all need to do. For the most part, we Bible-believing Christians today simply ignore the early Christians. We rarely talk about them in our churches, and we disregard their writings. Our stance reminds me of the position the Pharisees took toward John the Baptist.
When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by asking him where his authority came from, he responded by asking them where John had received his authority. The Pharisees huddled together, saying among themselves, "If we say from heaven, he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say from men, we fear the multitude, for all of them count John as a prophet." So they ended up answering Jesus, "We don't know." Well, our approach to the early Christians is very similar.
We can't say their beliefs and lifestyles were correct, because then we would have to acknowledge that our lifestyles and many of our own beliefs are not. On the other hand, we really don't want to accuse them of being heretics, because we can't deny their unconquerable faith and genuine Christian love. Furthermore, if we say they were heretics, we would have to admit that our New Testament canon was assembled by heretics. So, like the Pharisees, we simply refuse to take a position.
We ignore the early Christians as if we can somehow make them disappear by paying no attention to them. But ignoring them doesn't change the historical truths to which they bear witness. Our first subheading, Our Need for Doctrinal Humility. Please understand, I'm not saying that we should immediately discard all of our beliefs and unquestioningly adopt those of the early Christians. But I am saying that we have some skeletons in our theological closets that we need to face up to.
For example, many of our evangelical doctrines on salvation are nearly identical to the teachings of the Gnostics. Of course, the Gnostics may have been right while the church was in error, but how likely is that? If nothing more, we should all at least be open to the possibility that some doctrines we consider sacred may not be correct. When I first read the early Christian writings, I painfully realized that many beliefs that I had dogmatically expounded for years were never taught by the early Christians.
In fact, as I've mentioned, they specifically labeled some of my beliefs as heretical. To say the least, this was a rather humbling experience. But maybe we're all overdue for a strong dose of theological humility. A short time ago, I was explaining to a Christian friend what the early Christians believed and practiced. Most of the things I shared with him matched his own beliefs.
He was quite excited about what he was hearing, feeling that the testimony of the early Christians was strong evidence that his own beliefs were correct. However, when I brought up some of their other beliefs that didn't match his own, he looked puzzled and was strangely silent for a moment. Then, shaking his head in bewilderment, he soberly remarked, "They certainly were off base there, weren't they?" The possibility that maybe he was off base never even seemed to have occurred to him.
Even if we are unwilling to change our beliefs based on the testimony of the early Christians, we should, at the very least, quit being so judgmental towards others who honestly interpret the scriptures differently than we do. This is particularly so if their interpretation matches those of the early Christians. Jesus told us, "Judge not, that you be not judged.
For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you." But many of us seem to think that Jesus really didn't mean what he said. We condemn without mercy the honest interpretations of others, and in return, we think Jesus is going to give us a big smile and a pat on the back on judgment day. But maybe we're wrong. Maybe it's our interpretations that are incorrect. Maybe Jesus will do just what he said and judge us the way we have judged others.
Our next subheading, The Early Christian Writings Give Us a Reference Point. Like many Christians, I personally believe that the Bible is the only inspired and inerrant source of authority for Christians. However, we Bible-believing Christians are now splintered into over 22,000 different denominations, sects, and churches. Generally, the reason for these divisions is not that Christians have wickedly been twisting the scriptures to suit their own purposes.
Rather, it's because many Bible passages can honestly be interpreted in more than one way by imperfect humans. As a result, even Bible-believing Christians are forced to come up with some additional basis of authority, such as denominational publications, pastors, seminaries, Bible commentaries, denominational governing bodies, church conventions, creeds, and evangelical traditions. But how valuable are these secondary sources of authority? Does one seminary really know more than another?
How can we be sure that our pastor is right and someone else's is wrong? How does a 17th-century Bible commentator like Matthew Henry really know what the apostles meant? Here is where the early Christian writings could be of such invaluable help to the Bible-believing church. Those writings are not inspired, and they don't claim to be inspired. The early Christian writers never put their works on a level anywhere near that of the scriptures, and neither should we.
However, from their writings, we can know what Christians believed at the close of the apostolic age. This gives us a reference point that far surpasses what any seminary, commentary, or 20th-century teacher can offer. Since we can't seem to agree on what scriptures mean, we should perhaps be humble enough at least to listen to the interpretations of the early Christians, since they were able to agree on the essentials.
But when we use the early Christians as a point of reference, we need to be honest in our use of them. Some churches selectively quote from the early church to bolster their own particular viewpoints. In doing so, they argue that the testimony of the early Christians is strong evidence of what the New Testament Christians believed. However, when those same denominations are confronted with other early Christian beliefs that don't match theirs, oh, well, then it's different.
Suddenly, what the early Christians believed is unimportant. In other words, the early Christian writings are authoritative when they match our beliefs, but they're irrelevant when they don't. Now, how honest is that? Are we really seeking God's truth when we take on such inconsistent positions? Our next heading, Unity on the Essentials. It's obvious from the early Christian writings that there was a core set of beliefs and practices that were handed down from the apostles.
The early Orthodox Christians universally accepted such essential beliefs and practices. At the same time, there were clearly many things that the apostles never explained to the church in general, nor perhaps to anyone. In those areas, there were considerable diversity of opinions among the early Christians. Yet they did not separate into a plethora of sects over such issues. In fact, there wasn't even much bickering about these matters.
For example, Justin Martyr believed that many Bible prophecies would be literally fulfilled during a literal millennium here on earth. But many other early Christians believed differently. Notice the amicable spirit Justin expressed when discussing his millennial views with a group of Jews. He said, "As I mentioned before, I and many others are of this opinion and believe that such prophecies will take place in this manner.
On the other hand, I told you that many who belong to the pure and righteous faith and are true Christians think otherwise." This non-belligerent, open-minded spirit was very typical of most early Christians. They didn't let their diversity of views on non-essentials affect their Christian unity. Although uncompromising in their obedience to Christ, the early Christians were very non-dogmatic on matters about which the apostles had not clearly spoken. We would do well to imitate their peaceful spirit.
Our next subheading, Reassessing Today's Church. After studying the early Christian writings, I stepped back and re-examined my own spirituality. As I've mentioned previously, by today's standards, I was a fairly committed Christian at the time I wrote the book. But by the early Christian standards, I was spiritually weak. So I had to ask myself, how does God view me? Well, perhaps the entire church needs to ask itself the same question. How does God view the church today?
Is he smiling with favor on us and showering us with blessings? Or does he view us as a worldly, apostate church? If Jesus were writing a letter to the church today, would he say to us what he told the church in Smyrna? "I know your works, tribulations, and poverty, but you are rich." Or would he repeat his words to the church in Laodicea?
"You say I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing, but do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked." Today, many Christians are claiming that we are living in a new era of the church. They say that God has begun to shower the church with material prosperity, miracles, and other blessings that were somehow withheld from the church during the past 2,000 years. Of course, it's possible that for some reason God is showering special blessings on the church of today.
But based on the record of past history, I think it's highly unlikely that he is doing so. It's far more likely that we are simply deceiving ourselves. After all, why would God make the faithful Christians of the early church carry their cross of suffering while he showers the Christians of today with material prosperity, miraculous health, and other fleshly gratifications? Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not denying that God performs miracles.
There are records of miracles and miraculous healing in the early church. But those were unusual occurrences, and they weren't the primary emphasis of the church. Churches today that emphasize material blessings, healings, and miracles are growing at an explosive rate. But is such growth really evidence of God's approval? Remember, the church grew nearly ten times as fast after Constantine's conversion than it had before. Yet it did not grow in holiness, only in numbers.
Jesus forewarned us, "Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonders in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'" Even among more traditional evangelicals, church growth has become an obsession. Methods that produce rapid church growth are soon adopted by church after church.
For example, the big rage right now where I live is multi-million dollar church recreation complexes called family life centers. From what I've observed, churches with expensive recreation centers grow much faster than those without. But so what? The 4th Century Church proved that we can successfully use human means to create a bigger church. But the 4th Century Church did not prove that we can use human means to create a better church. Our final subheading, It's Not Too Late to Return.
Christianity was originally a revolution that challenged the attitudes, lifestyle, and values of the ancient world. It was more than a mere set of doctrines. It was an entire way of life. And all the military, economic, and social forces of the Roman world couldn't stop it. But after 300 years, the revolution partially foundered. It ran aground because most professing Christians lost their obedient trust in God.
They imagined that they could improve Christianity through human means by adopting the methods of the world. But they didn't improve Christianity. They gutted it. There's a down-to-earth saying in rural Texas, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." In other words, don't try to improve something if there's nothing wrong with it. The improvement usually ends up making things worse. Likewise, there was nothing wrong with early Christianity. It didn't need fixing.
But the 4th Century Christians became convinced that they could improve the Christianity they had inherited. They said it to, in effect, if Christianity meant material blessings and prosperity instead of suffering and deprivation, well, we can convert the whole world. But in the end, the church didn't really convert the world. The world converted much of the church. Yet somehow the lessons of history have failed to convince Christians today.
The church is still married to the world, and Christians still think they can improve Christianity through human means. But Christianity will not improve until the church returns to the simple holiness, genuine love, and cross-bearing of the early Christians. Our divorce from the world is long overdue, and this is one divorce that would have God's unequivocal blessings. The cross and revolutionary banner of early Christianity are still lying where the early martyrs left them.
It's not too late for the church to return and carry them again.