Determining What is Normative

by Eric Svendsen
In the first issue of our newsletter we included an article entitled Statement of Purpose in which we made the assertion that certain practices of the NT church are to be considered normative for the church in every age and culture. Just what do we mean by this?

All churches (regardless of denominational affiliation) recognize certain normative features of the early church, albeit some groups emphasize certain practices over others. Many churches, for example, lay hands on elders (or on other church leaders) when ordaining them. Most churches pattern their form of church government after the pattern which they find in the NT (or so they will argue). Most (if not all) consider that meeting together on at least a weekly basis is extremely important or even (dare I say it) normative for the church in all ages and cultures. Further, I know of no reputable church that does not hold this weekly meeting on Sunday (barring seventh-day sabbatarians). The interesting thing about this, however, is that none of these practices is commanded!

Most church renewal proponents would argue that it is precisely because these practices are not commanded that they are to be considered non-normative. They would allow that if a church wants to practice these things they are perfectly free to do so just don't call them normative. But let us imagine for the moment a church which follows this philosophy of ministry and decides it wants to exercise its freedom to conduct itself as it wants. Let's say that this church decides to meet together as a church on Tuesday instead of Sunday but not every Tuesday; let's say it decides to meet together every other Tuesday, or the first Tuesday of each month. Since there is no command to meet together weekly, this church is perfectly free (isn't it?) to hold its meetings the first Tuesday of each new year if it is so inclined! (At least that is the conclusion we would have to draw under this system). Let us further imagine that this church decides, instead of meeting together as a church, to hold a monthly neighborhood Bible study something traditionally seen as a para-church activity. (But why call it a para-church activity since nowhere are we commanded to meet together as a church?). When this church obtains new members it baptizes them and places them in one of these monthly Bible studies, thus fulfilling the Great Commission (where is the command to form churches out of newly evangelized believers?). There is no leader in these Bible studies, since their is no command to have leaders in the church (and even if there were such commands, there is no command to have church per se, and since this is not a church but a Bible study, there is no violation of Scripture). Finally this church decides that it will observe the Lord's supper once every tenth year. No one can object to this by appealing to Paul's words in 1 Cor 11:25, for the statement as often as you do this is not the equivalent of the imperative do this often!

Need I continue? The point is, even the most liberally minded church renewal proponent would reject this scenario but on what basis? The renewal proponent might argue that although the pattern of the early church is not normative, the principles upon which they operated are. But then upon which principle is the church to operate? Is it to operate on the principle of meeting together once a week? Or is it to operate on the principle of the freedom it has to choose how often it decides to meet together? Depending on which principle one chooses the practice could differ radically. The point is, it is insufficient to argue that principle alone can act as the criterion upon which to determine normative church practice, for principles are dubious at best. Indeed, the church we described above could very well appeal to principles of its own to support its highly questionable practices!

The fact is, if we are honest with ourselves we will have to admit that there is more to the NT pattern than we sometimes want to allow, and that we all, to some extent, see certain practices of the early church as normative even though they are not commanded (unless, of course, we find ourselves in sympathy with the church described above). The question is, Which practices are normative and what is the criterion for judging them as such?

Both R. J. Bauckham and A. T. Lincoln have argued in their essays (The Lord's Day and From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective respectively) in the book From Sabbath to Lord's Day (Ed. by D. A. Carson, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) that meeting on Sunday is to be normative for the church even though it is not commanded. They base their conclusion on two criteria: (1) that the early church seems to have been practicing this universally by the end of the apostolic era; and (2) that it took on the title Lord's day according to Rev 1:10 (pp. 236,39-40,383,87-88), so that Bauckman can conclude that this custom has received the stamp of canonical authority (p. 240, see also p. 388). I dare say that this represents the consensus of evangelicalism at large. We have little problem with the first criterion of these two scholars; it is only with the second that we disagree. It sounds too much like the second criterion is put there only to exclude as normative other universal practices held by the first century church. Yet in what way this church practice can be considered normative without conceding other church practices to be normative is not readily apparent. This can be amply demonstrated by pointing to other universal practices of the church which took on distinctive titles, such as the love feast (Jude 12) or the holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; etc.). Yet it is doubtful that Bauckham or Lincoln would conclude that these are to be normative for the church. Nevertheless, both of these scholars so much as admit that the second criterion is merely a confirmation of the first, and especially so with Lincoln when he states we are not using this passing reference [Rev 1:10] in order to establish a precedent but to show that a precedent had already been set . . . and met with . . . approval (p. 387). With this we agree. But then is it too much to say that other universal church practices were considered normative by the early church even though they took on no identifying title? For instance, what title would the apostles have given to the early church practice of meeting in homes if they wanted it to be a church custom? We call them house-churches, but is it reasonable to assume that the apostles would have deemed it necessary to give this practice a special title if (and only if) they saw it as normative?

On the other hand, Bauckman and Lincoln have not without good reason qualified their first criterion with their second. They no doubt see the problem of simply saying whatever the early church did we should likewise do; for then we would all be conducting our meetings by candlelight, wearing tunics, and writing to one another on parchment! Yet their second criterion is far too reductionistic and unnecessary not to mention that it does not account for those practices (such as the frequency of the Lord's supper, the form of church government, etc.) which have no specific title. It seems best to say (as we do) that it is the distinctive practices of the early church that are normative for today. This would include those things that have to be seen as church customs and not culturally conditioned practices. It would distinguish, for instance, between using candles to give light to the meeting place or writing on parchment (things practiced in the culture of that time) and holding a love feast or meeting together on Sunday (things practiced distinctively by the church).

This is the foundation upon which we will build our hermeneutic. Although much more can be said to commend this method (such as authorial intent and the theology behind each practice), we will have to wait until our next issue to deal with them.