By Christian
In the last two parts of this series, we will deal with the consequences of wanting to shape our Zoom community ‚exactly like the first Christians‘. In the last part, we had already covered these topics:
- ‚They devoted themselves to the apostles‘ teaching‘
- ‚Sharing a meal together‘
- ‚Breaking bread together‘
- Baptism
- Finances, donations, property
- Apostles, overseers, elders, deacons
- Women as overseers, elders and deacons
I would like to take up three further points that pose an enormous challenge for a Zoom community, even more so than for others.
Doctrines
What was it like when the first congregation in Jerusalem was founded? Well, actually there was no such moment. At least not like in other congregations that were founded by missionaries like Paul. Was it clear from the beginning what everyone had to believe? Or to put it another way: Was there a list of doctrines that ‚we in this congregation‘ believe? Do these considerations and questions seem strange to you? That’s perfectly fine, because the historical development was different. The first disciples all came from the Jewish religion. And whichever direction they leaned, they had a common foundation. To this were added the teachings of Jesus Christ and the conviction that he had risen from the dead. There was not much more when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. What was the central message? “Philip went to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah Jesus.” (Acts 8:5 NEÜ) And shortly thereafter: ‘Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told the Ethiopian the good news about Jesus.’ (Acts 8:35 NEÜ) What else did he have to learn and accept as binding beliefs before he was baptized? “As they traveled along the road, they came to some water. ‚There is water here,‘ said the eunuch, ’so why can’t I be baptized?’” (Acts 8:36 NEÜ). Nothing, because we read that he was baptized.
Why did I mention this? For one thing, it shows us the basic teachings of the first congregations. The scriptures (what is today called the Old Testament) and the gospel of Jesus. Were details asked about or difficult theological questions? Was there a fixed creed? It is interesting here that Acts 8:36,37 is rendered differently in different translations:
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water. “There is water here,” said the eunuch, “what stands in the way of my baptism?”
Footnote: Later manuscripts add: “If you believe with all your heart,” Philip said, “you may be baptized.” – “Yes,” said the Ethiopian, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (This question and answer corresponded to the practice of the early church and probably came from there into some manuscripts.)
Acts 8:36,37 NEÜ
Over time, central doctrines of the faith were formalized so that they could be learned by heart. Writings such as the Didaché served as instruction after baptism. But there were already oral creeds that found their way into the text of the New Testament:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
1 Corinthians 15:3-7 NIV
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
1 Timothy 3:16 NIV
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
Who, being in very nature a God,
Philippians 2:6-11 NIV
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature b of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death —
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
In the last two quotations, the text of the New Testament itself uses an interesting verse form that facilitates memorization and repetition in the congregations. And if we think of the instructions in Acts 15, they were also very concise.
Now compare that with your Zoom congregation or one you know. Do they think they are doing everything the way the first century congregation did? And in terms of beliefs, are they doing it the way we just read about? Then maybe you should have thoughts like those quoted in the Bible texts, right? Compare it, for example, with this description of a Zoom congregation:
We are non-Trinitarian Christians.
Our beliefs are: [I have left out the detailed sub-points]:
A Zoom Congregation’s Own Description of Its Core Beliefs
There is only one true God, the Father of all, the Creator of all.
Jesus is our Lord, King and only Leader.
The Holy Spirit is used by God to accomplish His will.
The Bible is God’s inspired word.
The dead are non-existent; the hope for the dead is resurrection.
Jesus Christ came to open the way for believers to become God’s children.
Satan (also known as the devil) was a son of God’s angels before he sinned.
There is only one Christian hope and only one Christian baptism.
Do you see the difference? As I said at the beginning of this series, the consequences only really become apparent when you look closely at how it is lived in practice.
If you ask someone from this Zoom congregation about who is allowed to attend their meetings, you will probably get an answer like, “Anyone can come to our meetings.” And why is it mentioned right away that they are “non-Trinitarian Christians”? Can someone who only agrees with the fundamental teachings that we have just read in the creeds in the New Testament participate repeatedly, but otherwise has different views? What if the person repeatedly comments on texts and expresses an opinion that corresponds to a Trinitarian doctrine? Will he then be allowed to continue to participate in the Lord’s Supper or even remain?
Now we must not make it easy for ourselves by telling ourselves that the person can go elsewhere. For if the members of the Zoom congregation are convinced that they are led by the Holy Spirit and that their views are part of biblical truth – and the doctrine of the Trinity is not – do we not then exclude the person from the ‚true‘ Christian congregation?
Who then has established these teachings? The description suggests that everyone is of the same conviction. But did it come about that a group of people unanimously came to this conclusion through the Holy Spirit (as described in Acts 15)? Or did the founder of this Zoom congregation first proclaim his views and then only those who thought similarly joined him? And later it is made clear that in the future only those who agree with certain views are welcome?
“Christian, aren’t you overdoing it a bit now? Then let them stay in their Zoom congregation and the others in their own. What’s the problem?” Coming right up. We look further into the future. In the non-Trinitarian Zoom congregation, someone expresses the thought that Jesus was a human being and was taken up by God because of his faithfulness to him. ‘No, absolutely not,’ we hear, ”Jesus came from heaven.” Can both views be tolerated? Or does one or the other view also become part of the belief system? Well then, let them give it a rest and divide into two Zoom congregations… And don’t say history doesn’t repeat itself. Isn’t that exactly what happened in the first centuries?
Is this the model for first-century congregations, or the beginning of the development of the first congregation in Jerusalem into the church? Is it not becoming clear, at the latest now, that we are automatically running into the same problems as the congregations in the first centuries after Christ? Perhaps we should also compare the origin and development of one of the numerous Christian movements in the 19th century. Then we can see even better the mechanisms and circumstances that have been repeated over and over again.
Who belongs to the Zoom Congregation?
The question of which teachings are or are not “permissible” also raises another point: Who belongs to the congregation and who does not? Who decides whether and when to exclude someone from the meetings?
Imagine that at some point, someone starts mentioning more and more often that the relevant Bible texts do in fact speak in favor of the Trinity. Or that women in the Zoom congregation should not pray in public. Or that heaven is not the hope for Christians. Or… you’re sure to come up with more.
Is it then already a ’sin‘ that is to be dealt with according to Jesus‘ words in Matthew 18? Some say no, and I will address this in the next section. So how did the first-century congregations proceed? I mean, practically, not in the sense of advice and instructions in a letter from Paul or something. Although one should also ask oneself whether one is not putting oneself on a par with a church planter and missionary like Paul when quoting such texts to oneself.
Does the Zoom Congregation decide then? By majority vote? Absolute or relative majority? And who actually ‚belongs‘ to the Zoom Congregation? Or does the moderator decide alone? If there were elders and overseers, then maybe they? Or is it better to ask the founder of the Zoom Congregation?
Some have brought up the idea of some kind of ‚domiciliary right‘: whoever organizes the Zoom meeting has the domiciliary right, so to speak, and can decide.
Good. So that would correspond to the congregation in Rome in the 1st century, which met in the house of Priscilla and her husband Aquila, according to Romans 16:3-5. This would give them the ‚domestic authority‘ to decide who could come and who could not. If the apostle Paul were to write about this in a letter or were even present, would his words only have an advisory function, or? After all, he does not have the authority over the household. So they could have turned Paul out of their house as well – their house. It’s interesting to see what happens when you think through such ideas in concrete terms.
In other areas, this may be understandable. Take a YouTube channel, for example. If someone feels that it is actually his or her channel and her or she is identified with it, then he or she may decide to delete posts that do not correspond to their views. Or posts from someone who is no longer actually part of the Zoom congregation or no longer wants to be. Although, what does that have to do with the content? Never mind, that’s still understandable.
But how is that with a Zoom congregation? You can’t think on the one hand that the Zoom congregation is a congregation like the first-century one, but at the same time claim ‚domiciliary rights‘ for yourself, as if you have invited guests into your living room.
If this matter is complicated, then how much more so when it comes to ’sinners’…
Dealing with ’sinners‘
Let us return to the question of how to deal with ’sinners‘. According to some, Jesus‘ words in Matthew 18 are the only relevant statement here. Let us read them in context:
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be e bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be f loosed in heaven. “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Matthew 18:15-20 NEÜ
I deliberately quoted the second part from verse 18 as context, because there are many very different interpretations of it. And Jesus’s reference to being with his disciples when even two or three come together. So not an easy text if you want to ‚do it exactly as in the 1st century‘. When does a brother ’sin‘ according to Jesus‘ words? Jesus does not elaborate on this. So is that decided in the Zoom congregation? Each person for themselves? Well, then some might think that this is a sin and others don’t? Do you then start to make a list… Well, but I don’t want to go into that at all. I also marked another sentence.
Even if you ignore the ‚little sins‘ of imperfect people – although Jesus makes no distinction here – then sooner or later there will be someone in a Zoom congregation who does something that quite a few people consider a sin. Then ‚bring the matter before the congregation‘, Jesus says. How should I imagine that in the Zoom congregation? If you claim to do it exactly as in the 1st century or as Jesus said, you would have to do it, wouldn’t you? Who then belongs to the ‚congregation‘? All those who are in the Zoom meeting more or less regularly? Are others allowed to join at this time? Or do you prevent that? Is video recording allowed? Feel free to think about this for a while and then reflect on the statement to ‚do it exactly as in the 1st century‘. If you don’t even know how it was done in the 1st century.
I think it has become clear that due to the past 2000 years, the different culture and today’s technology, there are new questions and challenges that did not exist back then. But if there can be no concrete derivation from the congregations in the 1st century, then the whole idea of doing it ‚exactly as in the 1st century‘ does not make much sense, does it?
Conclusion
As we have seen, it is not possible to ‚do exactly as the first-century church did‘, because the one church did not exist. And the different congregations did not always and everywhere do everything the same way. That would not have made sense either, because the context and circumstances were different and changed.
Why did we even bother with this claim then? Because the claim “we do it like the congregation of the early Christians” often carries other ulterior motives: Because we do it like the early Christians, we do it right. Emphasis on right. Or also: Because we do it like the early Christians, we do it right. Emphasis on ‚we‘. And that implies that ‚the others‘ are not doing it right. And that creates a boundary in space that strengthens the sense of ‚us‘, but does not necessarily have a biblical basis. And at some point, one might even speak (again) of ‚true‘ and ‚false‘ religion.
This raises the question of whether, two thousand years later in the internet age, in countries where Christian religions are widespread or predominant, the context is not so different from the first century that the scant information we have cannot be directly applied to our situation. Especially since there is no instruction for this in the New Testament.
Does it even make sense to try to do it ‚exactly like the congregation of the early Christians‘? Didn’t the believers in the first century and in the time after that have to think again and again about how to organize themselves? Of course. Because if you read the New Testament, as we have done in this series, you will notice that they were supported by the Holy Spirit, but he did not dictate or inspire every little detail. And actually, Jesus leads his church. And sometimes he also used angels for this. The Holy Spirit came into play when it went beyond what they could have done themselves. Peter would never have come up with the idea of baptizing the Gentiles on his own. He would never have taken it upon himself, as his responses to his vision show. And Paul was determined to evangelize in a certain area, until he was clearly directed in a different direction in a nocturnal vision. But otherwise, they had to use what their Creator had given them: their minds.
In any case, it can’t hurt to broaden your view to include the accounts of the believers in the New Testament and also in the Old Testament. And there is also a lot to be learned from the history of the disciples and the Christians up to the early churches. Yes, even from the further historical development. And the movements that emerged in the 19th century. Ultimately, you will find that the New Testament is not a manual for organizing the meeting. Pretty soon you are faced with questions and decisions, as have all followers of Christ over the centuries. And there are no easy and clear answers in the New Testament. Since our context today is quite different – especially in the case of a Zoom congregation – we need to rethink things. In doing so, we should learn from the decisions and developments of the past.
Kommentar verfassen