I Follow Apollos

The idea of a "biblical church" strikes me as odd. If I understand the term correctly, it means something like "a church which tries to mimic those described in the bible in all ways they deem significant". The problem, of course, is that churches tend to disagree on not only which aspects of the biblical churches are significant (I still say holy kisses are a sacrament), but worse, precisely how the important things were actually done. (Did the early church have women deacons? Baptize babies? All speak in tongues?)

I see myriad problems with the desire to be a biblical church, particularly if the term is understood narrowly. For one thing, I think you'd have a hard time getting all the authors of the New Testament themselves to agree on a very precise set of church doctrines and practices. I like to think that if Peter and Paul and John and James were alive today, they might not all be members of the same denomination (not that they'd make a big deal out of it). Which got me thinking about how it would sound if the apostles went church shopping. This is how I imagine some people imagining it:

Hi there, this is the apostle Paul. I'm calling on behalf of the New Testament Writers' Association. We're thinking of relocating to your town, if we can find a suitable church to attend. Can I ask you a few questions? ... Great.

I took a glance at the statement of faith on your website, and on the whole, it looks promising. A few points may need to be clarified a bit - "inspired" can mean a lot of things, you know - but on the whole, I thought it was pretty good.

Ok, first off, you say you're a "Biblical Church". That's good. Can you explain what that phrase means? ... Yes. ... Well good. I'm glad to hear it.

Can you tell me what your church teaches about salvation? ... And at what point would you say that happens? ... Do you believe there is a possibility that a person could lose their salvation?

Can you describe for me a typical service at your church? ... And how often do you do communion? ... Wine, or grape juice? ... Yes, of course. Now, you don't use those awful wafers do you?

And how much water do you use to baptize your infants? ... Right. ... Ya, that was kind of a trick question.

Would you describe your church as charismatic? ... Do you believe the gift of tongues is still given today? ... Oh, I'm glad. ... Yes, I completely agree, but you wouldn't believe what some people do with that verse.

What is your stance on women's roles in the church? ... I see. And do they wear headcoverings? ... Under what circumstances could a women address the congregation? ... What if she was a visiting missionary?

One final thing: could you give a brief description of the end times? ... I'm looking primarily for sequence of events ... Good. ... And would that be the trumpet, or bowl judgments? ... Ok, continue. ... Hold on, what was that? Did you say after the seven years? ... You can't be serious! ... No, no, you've got it all wrong! ... No, it's no use. I'm afraid I'll have to continue my search. ... Yes, quite sure. ... I'm sorry to have bothered you. ... Alright, well, the grace of our Lord be with you. ... Goodbye.

3 comments:

Lucid Elusion said...

haha!

I'm sure glad that Paul, James & John really didn't care about the little things as much as people today do, and when the big things did go slightly askew, I'm glad that they had the cojones to speak up & work to rectify those problems. ;)

Filth- Man said...

I agree with L.E. I would suspect though, that we might disagree on what constitutes "big things".. therein lies the problem in church splits, I think. Every one thinks that their dispute is the important one (and some of them probably are.)

Jacob said...

Ya, that's the rub. Others will disagree, of course, but for what it's worth, I would argue that the big things mostly have to do with demonstrating love to our community, and that doctrine or the structure of church services or leadership are generally only big things to the extent that they help or hinder this effort.

As an example, the appointment of the seven sub-apostles (Stephen et al.) in Acts 6 was a direct response to a practical problem with a ministry of compassion. In my opinion, truly "biblical" church leadership would be innovative and pragmatic, not eternally bound to a structure that was effective in the first century. But I'm not really interested in entering the more-biblical-than-thou competition.