Determining What is Normative

by Eric Svendsen
Before continuing with our discussion on how to determine normativeness, allow me to clear up a potential misunderstanding about what we mean by the word normative. The word has been used by some to signify what is absolutely binding on the church. We mean no such thing. What we mean is that the NT pattern is most beneficial for the church; that is to say, God's design for the church is better than any man-made design, no matter how pragmatic that design might be. It should therefore come as no surprise that (although not considering it binding) we argue strongly for the normative nature of the NT pattern in the area of ecclesiology.

Any man-made design for the church invariably fails in one way or another to express fully the intended purpose and function of the church gathered. For instance, a large church gathering may be very pragmatic for corporate worship or evangelism, but it fails miserably in edification and mutual participation of all its members. The Lord's Supper (as currently practiced in the large church) may very well convey a memorial to Christ, but it hardly conveys the concept of unity demanded by 1 Cor 10:16-17.

It is only when we recognize that God was more instrumental in setting the pattern of the NT church than we commonly want to allow, that the whole issue of what is normative becomes exceedingly clear. Only when we see that function and form are not mutually exclusive ideas (and that they are in fact complimentary to each other) will it become evident that the function of the NT church is best carried out by the NT form of the church. Why do we so readily assume that we can do things more effectively with our methods and programs than with the Divine pattern? One can argue all he wants that the NT pattern just won't work in today's society, but until the church begins to follow the NT pattern and sees for itself whether or not it will work, that argument will never be substantiated. Are God's hands tied? Does the surrounding societal culture really have anything at all to do with whether or not God's pattern for the church will work? Does God really depend on our ingenuity and innovation to make his church work? I hope the answer is obvious. The NT church did not have any programs to speak of, was without formality, finances and mission boards, and held its meetings in the simplicity of the homes of its members. Yet opponents of Christians in the first century could say that they turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6)! How many opponents (or friends for that matter) of Christianity have said that about today's church?

Perhaps more important than the pattern itself is the theology behind the pattern. It hardly needs to be said that we are not advocating a merely superficial adherence to otherwise meaningless patterns. On the contrary, we are arguing that there were good reasons for the first-century church universally adopting certain practices--reasons that are deeply entrenched in theology. For instance, as was pointed out in last month's issue [cf. "Oneness in the Lord's Supper"], there is a complete theology of unity behind the pattern of using one loaf of bread and one cup in the Lord's Supper. If the church today is to have the same theology of the Lord's Supper as the apostolic church, then we simply cannot ignore the pattern which they gave us to exemplify that theology. It is not simply a matter of whether or not it is commanded; that misses the point. We have to stop thinking in those terms if we are to recapture the intended theology behind apostolic orthopraxy.

Another example is the Love Feast. Although today we see a great distinction between the Love Feast and the Lord's Supper (usually contending that the latter is binding while the former is optional or even a thing of the past which is best not practiced today), the apostolic church saw no such distinction. Granted the loaf and the cup were central to the Lord's Supper, yet the early church did not see the Supper apart from the Feast. This is clear in 1 Cor 11 where Paul is correcting the Corinthians' errors about the Lord's Supper. Paul is discussing what he calls the Lord's Supper (v. 20), but it is abundantly clear that he is describing the Love Feast. For instance, he says, "in eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. . . . do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing?" (v. 21-22). It is often pointed out that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for the way they were conducting the Lord's Supper. It is then contended on this basis that Paul sees the love feast as optional while upholding the Lord's Supper as binding. The standard proof-text for this is v. 34: "If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home." But this is surely a misreading of the verse. That Paul is not advocating the termination of the Love Feast is evident from the use of the singular "anyone" and the third person singular "him." Paul is simply saying that if any individual cannot keep himself from eating all the food before the poor get there (vv. 21-22) then he is better off eating at home before the meeting begins. This is not to say that he won't eat something at the meeting as well, only that he won't be tempted to hoard that which rightly belongs to all the members of the body. Even in the Last Supper the bread and cup were in conjunction with an entire meal. So again we see a theology behind the practice. The participation in a meal by the body of Christ not only offers an opportunity to share material goods with each other (and especially with the poor who have nothing), but is also symbolic of the eschatological Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25; see esp. Lk 22:16-18, "I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God").

Another practice of the church largely neglected today but having great theological significance is the mutual participation of the saints in the assembly. The analogy of the physical body which permeates Scripture demands a spiritual counterpart whose individual members are all functioning properly and doing their fair share (Eph 4:16). The theology of the body is naturally manifested in mutual participation.

Possibly the most underrated of all NT patterns is the house church. Yet it is perhaps the hub around which all other NT practices take their form. For instance, the practice of the Love Feast, the use of one loaf and one cup in the Lord's Supper, and the idea of mutual interaction and participation of all the members of the body seem awkward and extremely difficult (if not impossible) to do unless they are practiced in the home as opposed to a larger setting for the church meeting. Moreover, the church is a family, not a business. The church has a personal relationship with God the Father. Which setting best conveys the picture of a family and a personal relationship with God--a specially designed building, or the home? The theology of the body as a family ought to be the determining factor in deciding how and where the church meets.

These are but a few examples of why the early church practiced the things they did. It was not merely a matter of convenience or culture; it was rather a matter theology. There was (and is) no such thing as a distinctive NT church practice which was (is) "optional." All the churches of the NT practiced the same thing. The fact that the church in its early stages met together daily and later met together weekly does not argue against a uniform early church practice. Certainly there was a developmental stage of the church, but that did not last long; it is clear that at the end of the apostolic age there appear to be distinct practices of the church that were adhered to universally.

Other practices could be mentioned (such as the Lord's Day and its significance for the celebration of the resurrection) but space does not allow. Is the church today effectively carrying out her duties? If so, according to whose standards? Those of the church, or God's? Does God really want us to compromise some church practices (and functions) so that we can emphasize others? We contend that there does not need to be that kind of disjunction; that we don't need to throw out some in order to hold on to others. All the distinctive practices of the early church had theological significance. Dare we forfeit--indeed, can we afford to forfeit--those things which may very well have been the key to making the NT church the living, thriving, dynamic force that it was in the first-century world? Let us reexamine afresh apostolic orthopraxy lest as a church we continue to second-guess the divine design and in the process find ourselves relying on the "wisdom of this age" rather than on the wisdom of God.