By Christian
After examining the text of the New Testament in relation to the congregations of the 1st century and considering the historical context in the first six parts of this series, we can now ask ourselves whether the claim that “we do it the same way as the congregations of the 1st century” can be implemented at all. Apart from the fact that we have already recognized from the scriptures that there was not ‚the one congregation‘.
So, after the sections “Text” and “Context”, we are now dealing with the “Consequences”.
Consequences
What is perhaps not so often considered are the consequences of actually trying to implement the pattern of the 1st century – or rather the patterns.
Let us recall Acts 2:41-47. We had read about the beginnings of the Jerusalem congregation: (1) they devoted themselves to the apostles‘ teaching; (2) they broke bread (the Lord’s Supper, Eucharist); (3) they shared their meals together; (4) they prayed together; (5) they shared everything in common. And later there were some changes in the congregations.
Now let’s see which of these are actually implemented in a Zoom congregation.
“They devoted themselves to the apostles‘ teaching.”
“We do that too, of course,” someone might think. But let’s note that in this quote from Acts, the 11 faithful apostles were meant. But you will probably also read the letters of Paul, James or Jude, won’t you? But we won’t quibble. At least as a goal in terms of doctrine, we’ll let that pass.
“Eating together”
Those who say that they do it exactly as the first-century congregation might still be able to implement that in their home groups. For the Zoom congregation, however, it is likely to be more difficult and is therefore hardly ever done: having meals together. So there we have the first deviation from ‚the pattern of the 1st century‘.
“Breaking bread together”
This Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus‘ last supper was actually part of the meal eaten together, and so we have the same problem. But for a Zoom congregation, it is even more difficult. Not because of the physical separation. And because you can hardly pass around a common cup and the same bread. But because of those present. Who is allowed to be there and take of the bread and wine? Only the baptized? Or did other requirements have to be met? The New Testament text does not say this clearly. But the Didaché clearly states that only those baptized in the name of Jesus may eat. Could someone who was new to the group participate in the shared meal and partake of the bread and wine? Or were they just supposed to watch? What do you do when people regularly attend your Zoom congregation for the first time? Do you have ‚observers‘ like the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or are only ‚participants‘ allowed?
Then, of course, there are the questions of what kind of bread and wine should be used. The New Testament says nothing about this. And how does your Zoom congregation do it? Like the congregations in the 1st century? Whatever suggestions or rules there are, they cannot be traced back to the congregation in the 1st century on the basis of the text.
Baptism
Are people being baptized in your Zoom congregation? And if so, by whom? Can anyone do it, or only ‚elders‘? The New Testament reports don’t say much, but as with John the Baptist, it was done at a body of water and thus in public. The Didachḕ did provide clear instructions regarding the water. And one should fast beforehand. That’s what congregations did in the 1st century. Well, ‚we do it exactly as in the 1st century’… Then you should ask about the water and the fasting next time.
Did anyone in the first century get baptized again because they felt their baptism was invalid? What was baptism about in the first place? “What stands in the way of my baptism?” asks the Ethiopian in Acts 8. What did he know and why did he want to be baptized? What does the text say? You might be surprised. And that’s why we’ll come back to this text later.
Should a baptism be broadcast worldwide to Zoom congregations via the internet? Remember what you read about it in the New Testament: Who baptized? And what did Paul say on the subject in his first letter to the Corinthians? “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name.” So if someone has founded a Zoom congregation or congregations or is known in them, it might be a sign of wisdom to consider whether to baptize others yourself and also broadcast this worldwide. Which of course was not possible at all in the 1st century, which brings us back to the topic: “We do it exactly the same way as…”
And let us recall the words of Paul, which we had already read in the second part of the series:
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1 Corinthians 1:13-17 NIV
Financing, donations, personal property
There were and are groups in which members are encouraged to hand over all personal property to the community. Supposedly, this is how the first community in Jerusalem functioned in its early days. However, this is not the case in most Zoom congregations or home groups. And it was not the case in the other communities in the first century either. So either one adheres to the one or the other congregation in the 1st century.
But how do you handle donations in your group? In the New Testament, we read that Paul was supposed to think of the poor – the poor in Jerusalem. And how donations were organized for these people in need in Judea. Because they had become impoverished due to their generosity after Pentecost, persecution or natural disasters. And that Paul himself worked in Ephesus and wanted nothing for himself. He only accepted support in exceptional cases.
So what should we think of donations for other purposes? If we don’t even know the exact reason? Only vaguely for the ‚promotion of the activity‘? Or for trips to other people in the group? Of course, everyone can do it as they want. If the donations are mainly for that and not for the poor, does that still fit with the 1st-century model? We are considering this in view of the statement: “We do it the same way as the first-century congregation did”.
But even in the 1st century, the support of traveling preachers (apostles; today we would rather call them missionaries) must have been abused frequently. Otherwise it would not have been mentioned so explicitly in the Didachḕ, as we read in the third part: “Every apostle who comes to you is to be received as the Lord; but he is not to stay longer than one day; if necessary, two days; but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet.” As a Jehovah’s Witness, I should have read this to a circuit or regional overseer earlier…
Apostles, overseers, elders, deacons
I’ll ask it straight out: Are there… apostles in your Zoom congregation? Overseers, elders, deacons? If they don’t exist, then that doesn’t correspond to the congregations in the 1st century. The text in the New Testament is unequivocal. And if they do exist, how are they appointed? By ‚laying on of hands‘ by the apostles? Hardly, because they have been dead for a long time. Or ‚by holy spirit‘? In what way? Or are elders elected by the congregation? This is where it gets quite difficult, because we find nothing in the New Testament about this after the death of the apostles (the original ones and those like Paul and Barnabas).
I will not go into this part in any more detail, because the Zoom congregations and house churches of which I am aware do not follow the example of the 1st century in this regard. They want to be organized differently. Everyone should be equal – perhaps also because of painful experiences in a religion to which they previously belonged.
Women as overseers, elders and deacons
This is an exciting topic because there are still heated discussions among scholars and lay people as to whether women are allowed to be overseers, elders and deacons. And how the relevant texts are to be understood. Don’t think for a moment that we can clear this up in a few sentences here. This topic shows, however, that it is not so easy to do it exactly as in the 1st century if you don’t know for sure how it was handled back then. And possibly even differently due to the cultural and historical context.
Besides, the topic is interesting because you can’t just ignore it – unless there are only men in the zoom community, which would be rather unusual… And certainly not in line with first-century congregations!
What if women are present, and some have the understanding that women may be overseers or pray, but others are convinced of the opposite? What does the Zoom congregation do then? Do some have to accept the decision in favor of the other view? Who decides then? The majority of those present, i.e. those who are regularly present or those who happen to be present? Or the overseers? If there are any overseers or elders at all, which is often not the case.
Or was it the person who founded the Zoom congregation? Or moderated? That person has the ‚right to decide who may enter the house‘, doesn’t he? So then Priska and her husband Aquila would have had the right to decide who may enter the meeting in their house (according to Romans 16:3-5)? And they decided what would be taught and whether women would be allowed to pray, etc.? I understand that someone who organizes a Zoom meeting initially sees it as an invitation to their living room. But then it is not a congregation like the disciples in the first century.
But these are by no means all the challenges faced when growing a Zoom community. A few more and a conclusion will follow in the next and final episode.