by Steve Atkerson

 

	oman Catholicism has made much of church tradition by placing it equal in authority to Scripture.  The reformers rejected this in their cry, sola scriptura Scripture only). While past church tradition is interesting and informative, we must
ever remember Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt 15:6). In jettisoning church  tradition, some have sadly made the mistake of also ejecting apostolic tradition.  This is somewhat akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.  The apostles of our Lord not only taught specific doctrines and gave definite commands, they also established patterns of behavior that they clearly expected all churches everywhere to follow.  Dare we disregard these patterns?  “Apostolic” refers to something associated with the twelve apostles that Jesus picked.  A “tradition” is an inherited pattern of thought or action.  So, “apostolic tradition” has to do with the way the twelve disciples did things. The original apostles were hand chosen by Jesus.  They were like manufacturer’s representatives.  After Jesus left the earth, these guys became the norm for doctrine in the early church.  Everyone looked to them to explain Jesus’ plan and purpose for God’s people.  Jesus said that if we reject an apostle, we are rejecting Jesus Himself (Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20; 15:20)! Thus, we who love Jesus take His “manufacturer’s representatives” seriously.  We carefully study what they wrote and want to obey it.  But what about all the things they themselves did, but didn’t expressly command us to do?  Must we do what they did?  Our friends would think us strange if we began wearing togas and eating pomegranates!  And where could we buy papyri on which to write? Some churches, in trying to be “primitive,” may conclude that the thing to do is forbid air-conditioning and indoor toilets in their church buildings!  Actually, following apostolic tradition has nothing to do with togas, pomegranates, papyri, or air-conditioning.  It has everything to do with things like how we meet as a church, why we meet, when we meet, where we meet, how often we meet, how we are led, and who we baptize. It is rather shocking how little the apostles directly command about the way we should “do” church.  Did they intend to leave it all up to our imagination?  Suppose we bought into the notion that we only have to do those things specifically commanded by the Twelve.  What type of “church” might we create? First, we might decide to meet regularly on Tuesdays, not the Lord’s Day, to avoid competition from the churches that do meet on Sunday.  And who says we must meet weekly – why not monthly or even yearly?  This would be more convenient and help reach those afraid of commitment!  Third, we need have no pastors, elders, deacons, nor leaders of any kind (since Scripture never tells us that we must have such people).  Related to this, we may opt for absolutely no form of church government whatsoever.  We could have rule by anarchy.  Everyone could do what is right in his own eyes and thus fulfill Jdg 21:25!  Fifth, the Lord’s Supper could be celebrated every ten years (so it wouldn’t become too common and lose its significance).  Sixth, new believers could be grouped into loose confederations of Bible studies, not official churches.  Finally, we could swell the membership rolls by baptizing infants and deceased unbelievers (the NT never says we can’t do this)! Need I continue?  If NT patterns are not binding, then no one could fault the “church” described above.  It violates no direct command of Scripture!  Obviously, most churches do choose to follow some NT patterns, but not all of the patterns.  But why not?  Did God give us the option of picking cafeteria style from those patterns we fancy, ignoring the rest? Suppose the church in Alexandria, having heard about the Apostle Paul, wrote to ask him about how to “do” church.  What type of government should be used–congregational rule, deacon rule, a plurality of leaders, or one sole pastor?  What should go on in church meetings?  How often should believers get together?  What is the reason or objective for the meeting?  Should a special building (like a temple or synagogue) be built?  Would it help to hire a full-time, professional minister?  Would Paul have written back with no direction, or say that it didn’t really matter what they did since every church was free to do as it saw fit?  The following excerpts from Paul’s writings are insightful.     1 Corinthians 11
	n 1 Co 11:1, Paul commands the Corinthians to “follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”  The surrounding context (10:31-11:1) concerns seeking the good of others so as to be used by God in bringing them to salvation.  The
order for them to mimic Paul brought to his mind a problem the Corinthians were having in the way they did church.  Thus, Paul shifts gears and in 11:2 begins writing about a new topic–their church practice.  First, Paul praises them “because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (11:2, NASB).  They remembered Paul in “everything.”  “Everything” means “all that exists.”  This certainly suggests that Paul’s intent was larger that just the evangelistic exhortation of 10:31-11:1.  Indeed, 11:2-16 concerns a church custom.  Second, a “tradition” (11:2) is “that which is handed down” (information, customs); it is an inherited pattern of thought or action.  This is distinct from a “teaching,” which is usually seen as a command from God or a doctrine.  The Corinthians were praised for holding firmly to his “traditions” (not just his teachings).  In Mt 15:1-9, Jesus blasted the tradition of the Pharisees – ”why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?”  Yet, in 1 Co 11:2 Paul blessed the Corinthians for holding to his traditions!  Whereas the Pharisees’ tradition broke God’s commands, the apostles’ traditions were natural extensions of God’s commands.  The apostle designed for the churches to mimic his traditions “just as” (11:2) he delivered them.  The phrase “just as” shows how particular he was about it.  Finally, in concluding his argument of 11:2-16, Paul wrote, “. . . if anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.”  Do you see what this indicates about uniformity of “practice” among NT churches?  The apostle obviously expected contentious objectors to be quiet once they realized that all the churches followed the same pattern.  There was one definite way for doing things among the churches. 1 Corinthians 14  Likewise, in 1 Co 14 (a passage about church meetings), we find the phrase, “as in all the churches of the saints” (14:33b).  This phrase also points to a universal pattern for all churches.  Then, the Corinthians were chided in 14:36 for doing something differently from what the other congregations were doing.  It says, “Did the word of God originate with you?  Or are you the only people it has reached?”  It seems that all the churches were expected to follow the same customs in their church practice. Philippians 4   “Good bye” is a shortened form of “God be with you.”  Php 4:9 states that if we desire for God to be with us then, “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me or seen in me–put into practice.  And the God of peace will be with you.”  Whatever we learn from an apostle, receive from an apostle, hear an apostle say, or see an apostle do, we are to “put into practice.”  Would this not include the way we see the apostles organize churches? 2 Thessalonians 2  The church of the Thessalonians was bothered by false teachers who tried to upset them concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus.  After writing to present the truth concerning end-time events, Paul wrote: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Th 2:13-15, NASB).  Again Paul uses the word “traditions” in 2:15.  The apostles expected the churches to “hold” to their traditions.  These traditions were transmitted two ways, by “word of mouth” (verbal, personal teaching) and by “letter.”  The phrase “so then” in 2:15 indicates an application–we should stand firm and hold to the traditions of the apostles!  Would it be wise to ignore their traditions for church practice? It is obvious from their writings that the apostles had a definite way they wanted things done.  Paul left Titus in Crete to “straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you” (Tit 1:5).  Paul promised the Corinthians, “The rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Co 11:34, KJV).  There was an “order,” a pattern, a set tradition that was followed.     The Right Attitude
	hat makes an apostle’s thoughts on the church any more weighty that anyone else’s?  Jesus gave unique authority to the Twelve saying, “whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me” (Jn 13:20) and “if they obeyed my teaching, they will
obey yours also” (Jn 15:20). It is interesting how Luke records that the early believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Ac 2:42) rather than “Jesus’ teaching.”  This is because the apostles’ teaching is identical to Jesus’ teaching!  To disregard an apostle is to disregard Jesus. Let us not ask, “Do we have to do things the way they did?”  Rather, the question should be, “Why would we want to do things any other way?”!  Ours must be an attitude of utmost reverence for those men personally appointed by Jesus to uniquely represent Him.  We agree with J. L. Dagg that respect for our Lord who commissioned the Twelve and for the Holy Spirit who guided them should induce us to prefer their forms of organization over whatever our own inferior wisdom might imagine (Manual of Church Order, 84). Almost every NT letter was written in response to some local, first century problem.  Are the inspired solutions to those local problems therefore not binding on believers two thousand years later?  Is the theology in those letters therefore also irrelevant for us today?  Actually, people today are really no different from people back then.  The problems they had are the same problems we face.  Similarly, the solutions the apostles came up with are the best solutions both for their day and ours.     An Axiom
	But does the Lord require a mindless adherence to these NT patterns?  There obviously is a strong purpose underlying each apostolic tradition.  For instance, Timothy went to Corinth to remind them of Paul’s way of life, which agreed with
what Paul taught everywhere in every church (1 Co 4:17).  What the apostles did–their way of life, the patterns they established–was in agreement with what the apostles taught (doctrine).  Thus, their belief determined their behavior; their doctrine determined their duty.  They did the same thing everywhere in every church. As pointed out in a previous chapter, it is a design axiom that form follows function.  If your function is to sell fertilizer, then your form will be to call on farmers, not ballet studios!  Similarly, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church naturally dictated the forms that they developed for doing church.  NT patterns flowed out of theological principles.  Therefore, whatever was normal, standard church practice for all the churches in the NT should be normal, standard practice for churches today.  The early church turned their world upside down (Ac 17:6), and did so while following the patterns we see in the NT.  In fact, it may have been these very patterns for doing church that gave them the dynamic that today’s church seems to be missing!  Zeal for the Lord is the gasoline that fuels the engine of following NT patterns. Either one without the other is disastrous.  Zeal without knowledge can cause one to miss God’s will completely.  Fleshing out the patterns without the zeal of the Lord is dry Phariseeism, a ministry of death and legalism.     Doing it Right
	All this is not to say that we should copy everything we read in the NT.  We can’t recreate Greco-Roman society.  First-century believers wore sandals, wrote on parchment, read by oil lamps, and dressed in togas.  We don’t need to do any
of these.The key is to zero in on their religious customs, and especially those that went against their culture. For example, if the Roman world had electric lighting, and if instead of using electric lighting the Christians lit their meetings by oil lamps, then that should get our attention.  And what about guitars?  Since they were not yet invented in the first century, should we not use  them?  The real issue here is whether they used instruments at all.  If they did not, then neither should we.  If they did, then a guitar (or anything else) is acceptable. In summary, if there is a direct command in the NT, we must follow it.  If there is a definite church pattern, we should follow it.  Moreover, beware of making patterns out of one-time events or actions of personal preference (like Paul’s vow not to cut his hair, Acts 18).  But what if the Bible is silent about something–with neither command nor pattern?  In such cases we have freedom to do whatever suits  us (as led by the Holy Spirit). So what are some of the NT patterns?   Open, interactive church meetings vs. a “one man show” A plurality of leaders vs. “the” pastor House churches vs. church houses (the edifice complex) Mutual edification and fellowship as the goal of the church meeting vs. a worship service Meeting on Sunday (the Lord’s Day) vs. one of the other six days Meeting weekly vs. monthly Baptism of believers only vs. infants (who can’t believe) The existence of elders and deacons vs. no leaders The separation of church and state vs. state-controlled churches or church-controlled states The Lord’s Supper taken as a full meal vs. token ritual (the “Lord’s Appetizer”) Celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly vs. quarterly or yearly Self-supporting pastors vs. career clergy A regenerate church membership vs. a failure to exercise church discipline (Mt 18) The church as a community that interacts all week long vs. a church whose members see each other only on Sunday Sadly, many churches today are firmly entrenched in traditions developed after the close of the apostolic era (often, those sacrosanct traditions date only from the last century).  Although sympathetic with apostolic tradition, the preference is usually given to more recently developed traditions.  In such cases, are we not guilty of nullifying the inspired tradition of the apostles for the sake of our own tradition (Mt 15)?  Jude 3 states that the faith was “once for all entrusted to the saints.”  What authorization do we have to tamper with it?