Moving Past the Primitivist Paradigm

Those who were raised in the Churches of Christ and paid any attention at all knew that we were part of the Restoration Movement. That label alone tells you a lot–something had been lost, and we had set about trying to bring it back. In our case, what had been lost was The One True Church, shattered into a thousand apostate fellowships operating in various degrees of error. Or, if understood more graciously, what had been lost was God’s Original Design for the Church, which had been obscured by well-intentioned people who had cluttered up the simple New Testament plan with misguided creeds and practices that detracted from the purity of the early church. Or maybe that should be written The Early Church, a supposed monolithic organization so close to the time of Jesus and so submissive to the inspired teaching of the apostles that their practice constituted a (near?) perfect pattern that could be copied in any time and place. Any group of Jesus-followers who managed to recreate the primitive pattern of The Early Church will have, ipso facto, Restored the Church.

Over time, the Churches of Christ developed a hermeneutic that was understood to enable Bible readers to suss out the pattern from the evidence left in the scripture. That hermeneutic has been commonly called “command, example and necessary inference.” In short, the church can only take a certain action if it has been commanded in the New Testament, if there is an “inspired example” of the church doing it, or if it is necessarily inferred that it must be done in order to obey the commands and examples. That simple formula works in theory, but in reality a whole cluster of traditional interpretation arose to explain why Jesus’ command to sell all our possessions and give to the poor was not incumbent on all Christians, but the example of weekly celebration of communion was. It get even trickier when dealing with matters that are “unauthorized” due to lack of a positive scriptural command or example–like instrumental music. Why are instruments, which God positively commanded in the Old Testament and never mentions one way or the other in the New, now verboten, while something like congregational ownership of property (which I contend caused a much bigger change in the tenor of church life) is accepted without anyone even seeing a need to try to defend it? How do we justify four-part harmony, which was unknown in the early church (and surely as much of a departure from a cappella antiphonal chant as the pipe organ)? Other restorationist groups felt that it was essential to bring back such things as miraculous healings and speaking in tongues–and there are surely approved examples of both of those. Why does Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 14 that women are to be silent overrule Peter’s proclamation in Acts 2 (following Joel) that “your sons and daughters will prophesy?” If it’s possible to be a consistent primitivist, I haven’t seen it in action yet–which is a large part of why the Restoration Movement has divided so many times, over questions of instruments, Sunday School, paid ministers, multiple cups in communion, wine or grape juice in communion, missionary societies, and on and on. The Roman Catholic critique that Protestants got no closer to the truth of God by rejecting the papacy and relying on each person’s own interpretive skill has some bite to it. In the extreme Church of Christ position (which did and still does exist) being part of a congregation that takes the wrong position on any one of those issues could condemn a person to perdition, which means, necessarily, that the vast bulk of not just the world but even of confessing Christians are damned because they made a mistake in somewhere in their chain of logical inferences, and took something to be approved which was, in fact, forbidden, or vice versa.

It’s hard to write all that out now without being overwhelmed by how harsh, how misguided, and how unfeasible the whole system is, but such is the power of group conditioning. If you are raised in a setting where everyone tells you “well, of course instrumental music is not authorized by God” you tend to buy into it and thank Jesus that you were fortunate enough to be born into the company of such right-thinking and righteous folk. Which is, of course, what your teachers had thought when they were younger, and their teachers before them, back to the first revolutionaries who started down this path.

For thoughtful Christians, usually a change in one’s theological outlook comes about gradually, the result of long wrestling with the scriptures, and with valued books, and the stimulating conversation of friends. But occasionally some grand epiphany comes along, or something is said that, in a flash, gives substance to a mass of inchoate thoughts that were cluttering around in your head, waiting to take form.

One day when I was 20, I was performing some errand with the preacher at the church where I was interning, when he said to me “Where in the Bible does it say that we can only do what the Bible specifically says we can do?” I could have fallen over right then. BAM! Our hermeneutic was not commanded. Nor was there an inspired example of Jesus or the apostles interpreting the scripture like we were. And it certainly wasn’t necessarily inferred from anything. It was something humans thought up that was handed down through tradition–the very kind of fallible doctrinal accretion that we were so vigorously fighting to do away with. The foundation of our movement was self-refuting.

There’s a line in Humphrey Carpenter’s The Inklings, where someone explains, “It’s the sort of thing that, once you see it, you can never not see it again.” Halfway across the parking lot, on a walk from the auditorium to the church gymnasium, my life changed.  While the reverence I had been taught for the Bible was a good thing, the way I had been taught to read it was a kind of idol that needed to fall and make room for something better.


Filed under Bible, Church Culture, Church of Christ

2 responses to “Moving Past the Primitivist Paradigm

  1. Amy

    Hmmm. I like this post. I have some questions, but please know I’m coming from an ignorant perspective, not being argumentative just for the sake of making an argument. What evidence is there that there was a unified church at the time of Christ? It seems like there would be oodles of different brands of churches, especially at that time.

    How can God’s original design for the church be obscured by people? I mean, we’re PEOPLE. He’s GOD. Isn’t He a little more powerful than that? Didn’t He know how we’d react before we did?

    In defense of a capella music. The reason usually given: an absence of direct instruction regarding instruments, makes no sense to me. I mean, flip back to the Old Testament and Miriam is flinging that tambourine all over the place. As a musician, however, that has worked in many different denominations, it is so freeing to be able to just sing. And do it as a layperson, not a hired hand. I imagine it’s something akin to listening to a sermon as opposed to being the one paid to preach it. That being said, I love Pastor Joe’s use of the guitar when he/we sing at his church. Very relaxed, detracts nothing from the service and I can bet he doesn’t stress out about chord changes before the service.

    Curious about the preacher where you interned–is he still preaching?

  2. Well, hi there, Amy! I’m really glad to “see” you here at my online hang-out.

    Lemme just give some quick responses:

    1) You’re right–there was never a monolithic church. I consider that a kind of C of C legend necessary to support the Restorationist mentality. It’s hard to restore the early church if it itself was diverse in practice. But it sure looks to me like there was a huge difference between the Gentile-dominate charismatics in Corinth and the large Jewish congregation in Jerusalem. The C of C needs to believe in a uniform primitive church, though, so that any command given to any ancient congregation in the scriptures can be assumed to be normative for all churches, everywhere, any time. It’s own of our chief myths.

    2) Re: a cappella music, I did and do still love it. I think it is a strength of C of C practice and a gift that the C of C can offer the rest of Christendom. I think it tends to encourage more congregational participation in worship, and that’s a plus, too. So I guess I should clarify that I actually love the practice of a cappella worship, but I hate that exclusion of other forms, and I think that bad reasoning that led us to our a cappella posture is likely to hang around until we open up our practice to other musical forms.

    3) Yes, that preacher is still preaching–but he is in the non-Sunday School congregations that I was raised in. Their culture is so different from mainstream Churches of Christ as to constitute almost a completely separate denomination. Non-class preachers also tend to have a different working relationship with their congregations because it is such a small system. The personal relationships tend to be much tighter across congregations, and it’s functionally one extended tribe. Because of that, there’s a familial feel that colors everything, and the most progressive thinkers and the most ardent traditionalists can be best of friends. “Yeah, he’s a heretic, but he’s my heretic.” No matter where I wind up, at heart I’ll always be a non-class Church of Christ guy. It shaped me deeply, and mainly in good ways. But, alas, that segment of the movement is fading fast, victim of its own graciousness. But that’s a long story, and probably of interest only to insiders.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s