Imagining a different church

I’ve recently been diving into the practices of the early church: learning about its structures, how they organized, their worship practices, and their relation to the world. I’ve been reading up on their writings and tracing their history. How did they form new disciples? What practices were taught? What was central to their identity? and finally, with regard to the state of the church today, How did empire (Constantine) change their values and practices?

One very insightful resource was a lecture given by Alan Kreider called, “Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom.” This work was cited by a few resources I was looking into, but unfortunately it was out of print. It took me a while to find a copy, but eventually found a free (not $139 copy) at academia.edu.

As I learned about the early practices of the church prior to Christendom, I was struck by how egalitarian^[1] they were in practice. They had leaders and teachers, yes, but the bulk of the church’s character was found not in any hierarchical structure of leadership/power, but in the community’s collective witness. The pastors did not have a public platform. They may have taught or led formation classes (the catechumenate classes), but that was not their primary work. Their main responsibility was to keep the peace and unity within the body, “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”^[2] They helped members love one another and work through differences.

Existing in the context of the Roman empire, the early church did not enjoy any affiliation with the state. If anything, they were the subject of ire by greater society. Some of their practices, like the eucharist, were done behind closed doors — no outsiders were allowed to participate or even observe — such that the public began to imagine what these whispers about “eating his body and drinking his blood” could mean!

In addition to their closed-ness of their practices to the outside world, I was struck by how little the early church engaged in evangelistic campaigns. The leaders of the church did not encourage the members to proselytize in any way similar to the modern church. The church did not organize efforts nor teach techniques to their members on “sharing their faith.” As I mentioned before, the pastor’s primary role was peace and unity within the body. They helped members of the church care for one another and support one another in tangible ways.

The communal practice of love was paramount, and that was observable by outsiders. And in loving one another, they would receive the kingdom as Jesus instructed his disciples: “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”^[3] They heeded Jesus’ new commandment to love one another out of the love he demonstrated for them. Jesus followed up on that commandment by saying that others would know they were his disciples by their love.^[4] The early church placed all their “evangelism” merely in their being — how they showed love to one another. Those outside the church would see how the Christians lived — how they shared generously with one another, how there were no needy among them, how those who were down one their luck or suffering from illness were not discarded or marginalized but loved and cared for. Those on the outside would see and exclaim, “I want that life!” and thus seek to join their company.

How far we are today from the ethos of the early church!

I’m not advocating that we transplant the practices of early church into our modern society. We do ourselves a great disservice when we attempt to retrofit an institution (for lack of a better word) into a context from which it did not arise.^[5] The church in every time and culture needs to find a way to express the gospel in a way that relates to its context. But that leads to the inevitable question, What is the gospel that Christians proclaim?

What are our values that we articulate in our teaching and in our actions? Does the world know us to be a people of love (and thus, Jesus’ disciples)? or has the world seen through our self-professed labels and properly recognized us and disciples of something else? To the public, the church seems better known for our stances that seem to hurt or marginalize others — practically the opposite of what Jesus taught. The church seems to “set itself apart” by being as counter-cultural as possible in all the wrong ways. I find that the modern church is often trying to restore and uphold a culture from a particular time and place that is no longer good in the present time and place. It has doubled down on what the world finds offensive under the guise of faithfulness, and has forsaken its call to express the love and grace of God in a way that the world will understand.

I want to imagine a different church, and knowing that the church has existed in different ways in the past gives me hope. Could the fellowship of believers and the leaders of the church again be “held in high esteem”^[6] again by the public? That people would see us and be bewildered that people could live in such a loving and generous way. This would be a church that would embody the “good news” (gospel) to the world.