The Church of Christ: Yesterday and Today . . .

THE GREAT LOST SECRET OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

A little tract by W. J. Pethybridge, published by Bethany Fellowship, has a title similar to the one above, and it says some things that I want to incorporate in this piece. After recounting the story of how the early church took the gospel throughout the Graeco-Roman world even amidst hardship and persecution, Mr. Pethybridge points to three factors that he believes reveal the secret of this amazing accomplishment. These are: (1) their evangelism was a ministry of the Holy Spirit rather than “human teaching,” (2) their meetings were in homes rather than church buildings, and (3) the primitive disciples saw themselves as members of the Body of Christ rather than individual believers.

He observes that even though the apostles had long been taught by Jesus, they were not ready for a dynamic ministry until “the new invisible Teacher,” the Holy Spirit, came into their lives. “When he is come, even the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth” is a promise that Jesus made not only to the apostles but to all who witness for him, Pethybridge believes. He supports this with a reference to 1 John 2:27, which is for believers generally: “The anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.”

The author insists that this does not discount the importance of human channels, but the source must always be the Spirit. And one of his comments indicates that the Spirit’s teaching is a matter of illuminating what is already revealed in the Scriptures, for he advises believers to “share the meditations they have received of Christ and His ways, turn to some passage of Scripture suggested by the Spirit, and trust Him to teach them from it.” He is also critical of those sects who “claim some extra revelation beyond the Bible.” Needless to say he believes in a Spirit-filled and a Spirit-led ministry, and sees the lack of this as one big reason why the modern church has not even kept up with population growth in winning the world for Jesus.

A large part of the secret of the success of the early church was the motivation they received from gatherings in homes, Pethybridgc insists. They had no special church buildings, so the various homes of believers were their meeting places. He points to Acts 2:46: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,” and to the four references to “the church in thy house.” He finds 20 instances in Acts and the letters where the saints had meetings in homes. They did give testimony in the temple and in the streets and synagogues, but they did not “go to church” to some building set apart for that purpose.

The author lists the advantages these home meetings were to the early saints, suggesting that we lose a great deal when we do not do likewise.

1. Everybody can know each other and really enjoy brotherhood in the Spirit in small home meetings. The relationship is warm and vital and less formal.

2. Everybody can take part and are more likely to do so. The Body of Christ can really function as a body, with every part working, as the scriptures teach us it should.

3. A great deal of money and time is saved that can be spent in a more important way, such as helping the poor and preaching the gospel.

4. There is never any “growth” problems, which causes a church to tear down one “barn” and build a bigger one. When a house group outgrows one home, it only means that another group starts in another home.

5. It solves the problem of special clothes for a special place, which a big deal in lots of places. Home gatherings tend to make people just as they are.

6. Ministry in the home overcomes much of the temptation to self-importance on the part of the leadership. Believers in a circle in a private atmosphere tend to be equal and to share mutually, virtually obliterating such differences as exist between clergy and laity.

7. Special buildings nearly always involves the practice of a special person as minister, and so we get what Pethybridge calls the “one-man ministry,” which prevents the full exercise of the priesthood of all believers. The house church overcomes this.

8. If it is best for a congregation to be dissolved, it is an easy matter for it to do so if it is not forced to hang on in order to payoff a mortgage.. Nor are population shifts a problem, for the meeting places go wherever the families move.

The author adds these pungent words:

“We are given to understand that for the first 200 years after Christ, the Church never had special buildings of their own, and when at last they did, the art of exhortation degenerated into the issuing of commands.”

What an incisive observation this is! Surely it is true that “the church in thy house” was a real fellowship of the Spirit, an experience of tender loving care, with attendance and collections no problem. Church house religion does issue forth a lot of commands, which usually have to do with maintaining “the System” that is inseparably wedded to the church plant. The folk must attend and must contribute in order to keep the thing going, and “the thing” is often far remote from what concerned the primitive saints.

Pethybridge sees the principle of “members one of another” crucial to understanding the secret of the power of pristine Christianity. The saints were not a collection of saved individuals, but rather members together in the Body of Christ, mutually building up one another in the faith. He is concerned about the hold the professional minister has over an entire group of believers. He says: “There is no suggestion of one man ministering to the whole group, but each is shown as having the privilege of possessing some spiritual gift, and the responsibility to minister this gift to the rest of the local church, so that every believer is looked on as a minister to the rest.”

Referring to modern research in education, he points to the fact that people usually learn little by merely listening. It is in sharing with others what one has learned that he really begins to master a subject. “This shows us the wisdom of God in planning the Church,” the author observes, “not as a vast congregation of listeners, but as a small body sharing with each other what they learn from the Holy Spirit.” He sees a mutual ministry in the exhortation: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16).

In applying these conclusions to our modern situation of having church plants that can hardly be forsaken overnight, Mr. Pethybridge offers suggestions similar to those that this journal has advocated for years. Believers should keep up their present connections with the established churches, he says, but let them practice the simple procedure of the early church in additional meetings in homes. He advises concerned disciples to invite a few loving hearts to their home, and to trust in the Lord to lead them to a closer walk in the Spirit. He believes such gatherings should practice the breaking of bread, a suggestion we have never made, believing as we do that this is a corporate act of the assembled congregation.

To be sure, Pethybridge believes that the effort to return to the house church must not be divisive. When at all possible, he advises, such a group should be started with the approval of the congregation leaders. Without such approval one should show great caution before going ahead anyway. “In any case, show Christian love and forbearance, and do not act or talk in a high-handed manner,” he adds.

If the early church’s great secret power is to be of influence in our churches today, our leaders must get with and find ways to implement these resources of spiritual vigor within organizational structures. With a little boldness and creative innovation the wonders of early Christianity can be repeated in our day. And this means far more than winning people to the faith. It means to bring them a life of joy in Jesus. It means to edify them and to give them a sense of belonging within the Body. It means to make them one in Christ together, allowing each one to contribute his own gifts to the building up of the church.

How would the following be for a creative change in a sizeable congregation?

Let the leadership divide the large congregation into units of 12 to 18 people. Assign them to weekly meetings in a classroom, perhaps twice a week, where they first experience the fellowship of knowing each other as brothers and sisters. They can share each other’s victories and defeats and learn to pray together as a family. On Lord’s day they can break bread together in their own mini-meeting, along with praise, prayer, and exhortation, all sharing together. Soon they can take on mercy projects all their own, reporting back to each other on their visits to shut-ins, the poor, and the imprisoned. They can as a unit finance their own projects, sometimes of course in cooperation with other units in the congregation, while at the same time paying their part of the upkeep of the premises.

These meetings would be augmented by house gatherings, and here there would be special effort made to reach out to others with the gospel. Such home groups would surely multiply and Jesus would be glorified, with many serving as ministers of the word.

The auditorium (where the sanctuary will gather!) will be used often, even every Sunday, for mass meetings of various types. There can be the preaching of the gospel, with special effort made to make it meaningful or that purpose. There can be addresses by outstanding speakers, as well as songfests, special youth programs, missionary programs, social issues discussed by panels of experts, etc. But it would not be for the breaking of bread, for this will be observed in the various units where it can be done as the early church did it. Now, really, does it make sense to break bread in a large audience where a lot of the people are not even acquainted and hardly any of them know each other intimately as brothers and sisters?

The units could be put on a rotating basis, so that in time all members of the large congregation would be in a unit with every other member. The units would be provided with good leadership, each one having an elder to direct it perhaps. If the church chooses to have a professional staff, it could be assigned to minister mostly to the community, for the saints would not need any hired functionary. Indeed, with such a plan the members themselves would be effective witnesses to the community, which would greatly enhance the possibilities of a professional staff.

I am convinced that if our churches do not start some innovative effort like this they are going to be left behind. We must move from our dead center position as vast assemblies of listeners to smaller groups of sharers. It would be far better that we assemble for the breaking of bread “where two or three are gathered” than where two or three thousand are gathered. If we really want to find a way to move closer to the dynamic of the early saints, we can do it.

The collage on our cover, the work of Talmage Minter, is an artist’s effort to depict the great secret power of the Christian faith. Talmage wrote: “I hope that the radiating lines of this collage will symbolize the Christ-centered power and outreach of the church.” Perhaps this is the secret that Pethybridge is trying to reveal in his provocative tract. The powerful motivating force was, after all, the person of Jesus. The mission of the Spirit was to glorify Jesus. The house meetings were a communion with him, and being a member in the Body was an identification with him.

He is indeed the great secret of power, a power largely lost in the modern church. We must come to know him, not simply know about him. Once our resolve is to know him and to be conformed more and more to his image, we will find ways to let him have his way in our lives and in the church. It is only the power of Jesus that will truly make the church his Body, “the fulness of him who fits all in all.” —the Editor

**********

Count that day lost, whose low descending sun views from thy hand no worthy action done. —Charles Stanford