If We Could Only Get Back

some thoughts on the idealized past

Growing up, I always heard things like “We need to get back to the Bible” or “We need to be the New Testament Church.”

The basic idea here is that the answer to religious division among the thousands of Christian denominations comes down to a failure to honor the authority of the Bible, especially as it pertains to following a biblical pattern of what the New Testament Church looked like, how it worshipped, and what it believed.

If we could only get back there, then we could have unity.

This sounds really good, doesn’t it?

The idealized church of the first century is at anyone’s fingertips; all they have to do is read the Bible honestly, with an open heart and open mind.

But, and this may be obvious, this very mindset is what lead to all of the religious division we see in the first place.

The number of denominations drastically increased following the invention of the printing press and the Reformation.

If putting the Bible into the hands of people to read, study, and find the biblical blueprint of the Christian church is the pathway to unity, then it doesn’t seem like a very efficient one. The Churches of Christ, for example, have only become more fractured as the years have gone on.

So why does this particular pathway to unity fail, and is there a more compelling option?

Patterns, Doubling Down, and Exclusion

The Idealized Past and Patterns

One of the core flaws to this approach is the idea of an idealized past. The past many try to get back to isn’t the expression of purity and unity that one might think, especially if purity and unity refer to a uniform approach to worship and doctrine.

The Church made it two chapters into Acts before facing persecution in Acts 4, and by the time Acts 5 rolls around, people are already presenting false holiness to try to impress their peers. In Acts 6, the apostles’ neglect of some of the widows led to the ordination of several deacons, one of whom died in the following chapter.

Once the Gentiles were introduced to the church through Peter, Paul, and other missionaries, questions about their role in the church, worship, and the relationship between Jewish churches and Gentile churches rocked the first century church for generations to come.

In fact, many of the questions we have about God, each other, and the world stem from the church’s inclusion of Gentiles with all of their philosophical and cultural baggage.

The literature of the early church doesn’t present a body of believers that was uniform in its worship or doctrine, which was the circumstance of many of the letters; instead, it presents a diverse body of believers who shared one faith but also convened councils, had heated debates, and sometimes faced division, even between apostles.

So I guess it’s no wonder that churches who attempt to unite the denominations through attempting to discover a biblical pattern end up fighting, divided, and tired; they are just following the biblical model of the first century church.

My Pattern Beats Your Pattern

Within ten miles of my house, there are at least four flavors of the Church of Christ.

Flavor One: fellowship buildings are not authorized and a source of division, fancy electronic billboards are expedient and biblical, women should wear head coverings, and donating church funds to an orphanage is not authorized.

Flavor Two: what flavor one says is too extreme, but they have several things correct: one has to be baptized in a specific way with a specific understanding in order for it to count, worship has to be done in a precise way in order to be biblical and acceptable to God, churches who deviate from this pattern are denominations and not actually Christians, and defending the faith once delivered means standing on these principles no matter what.

Flavor Three: while we believe much of what Flavor Two says, there is a difference between preaching Jesus and preaching pattern theology. We will teach these things when they come up, but we won’t focus on them 24/7 like some may want. Still, we will do things the biblical way but with less grandstanding and endless aggression.

Flavor Four: while some of our members hold various beliefs of the above flavors with some conviction, our main position is to preach Jesus and emphasize grace, mercy, and love. We ultimately reject the idea of the idealized past or that there is such a thing as a biblical pattern of worship. Instead, anything that builds others up in love is what really matters, and pursuing unity through other means only breeds division.

So what happens when you get a Neapolitan mixture of all of these flavors in one bowl to have a discussion about unity? What tends to happen in these conversations is that people double down on their pattern.

Flavor One condemns Flavor Two for not having authority for fellowship halls. Flavor Two condemns Flavor Three for being too soft and not fighting for faith once delivered. And Flavor Three condemns Flavor Four for not even attempting to recover a biblical pattern and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And Flavor Four may look back on the other flavors and say, “Lord, thank you for not making me like them…”

Meanwhile, the clock around Flavor Flav’s neck keeps ticking while the church becomes more and more splintered.

To put it in different language, pattern theology leads to division because of the “my pattern beats your pattern” kind of thinking.

“Ah, Daniel. That’s where you’re wrong. It’s actually about God’s pattern.”

This sounds good, but the people who say this really mean, “I have the correct interpretation, so to disagree with me is to disagree with God.”

This doesn’t leave a lot of room for growth, does it? And it doesn’t leave any room for diversity.

Since the only thing acceptable in such a system is absolute conformity to the biblical pattern, anything that strays from this alleged pattern must be eliminated as soon as possible.

Like Walter White abandoning his cooking to track down and kill one fly in his laboratory, those who view God as an architect of a pattern of worship that only finds this specific kind of worship acceptable must mark and excommunicate anything that looks different from themselves.

They Have Abandoned the Gospel

After setting out to seek a biblical pattern, pretending to find such a pattern, and then doubling down on said pattern, one must then eliminate or demonize the other.

This can be done through debates, publications, or week-long meetings that discuss change agents in the church.

Opponents of those who consider themselves guardians of truth are not sincere, misguided Christians who have a few points wrong; instead, they are dangerous false teachers who have abandoned the gospel, refuse to defend the faith once delivered, and compromise the truth of God’s word (meaning the Bible).

If you totally buy into pattern theology and the idealized past, then nothing less can be expected. As someone on the receiving end of this treatment, I know how unfair it feels to have your motives, sincerity, and love for the truth called into question. As someone on the giving end of this, I understand how comfortable fortresses of faith and argument can feel as well as how scary it can be for us to allow the Holy Spirit to dismantle them.

There is a huge assumption in all of this that has to do with how we view God, the Holy Spirit, and the future, but that will have to wait for another article.

What if a Country Did This?

Let’s leave behind the world of religion for a moment and imagine what would happen if a country took this approach to its governance, law, and ideal status and wealth.

Imagine a politician walking the streets of Rome proclaiming, “The reason things have gotten bad is that we’ve left behind the ideals of our ancestors. If we could just get back to their core principles and return to that ideal state, then our future would be grand!”

You can imagine how this might resonate with people.

You might also imagine how this pretend politician may speak of those who disagree with them and their definition of ideal: “These people are part of the problem. If we want our nation to excel, we have to get them out of here. They aren’t true citizens of Rome.”

If some pushed back against this idea by suggesting that these other people have a right to their opinion, the politician might say, “They do have the right to their opinion, but their opinion is wrong. If they would just read the founding documents, which I happen to be an expert of, then they would be where I am and we could end this division.”

As more and more people followed this politician, you may even notice them beginning to express increased disdain towards anyone who doesn’t look like them: “You know, these Judeans aren’t even Roman citizens, and they are a threat to our identity as Romans as well as the pathway to a grand future.”

The more they buy into an idealized past, the more the harmful rhetoric, exclusionary action, and division increases. Those who join themselves to this politician might even find themselves excluded when they ultimately discover a disagreement because the only person who can be right within this system is the one at the head—and that’s definitely not Jesus.

Since we’ve seen this sort of thing play out in history with actual politicians, hopefully our bologna meter would go off if something like this happened in our time. But isn’t it interesting how, if we put the Bible in the hands of an authority figure, our dedication to God and our desire to follow Jesus may cloud our perception of the shadiness of this whole approach?

Where to Start?

One of the reasons the pattern approach is broken is that it starts where so many theological quests begin: the assumption of separation.

Because we believe that we are here and God is over there, we think that something must be done to traverse the distance between us and God. The problem with these kinds of systems is that the harder we try to approach a God that is over there somewhere, the further away that God gets.

If, for example, you start with a distant God who must be approached through correct worship, anyone who disagrees with you on how that all works must be eliminated because they are trying to get between you and God.

But if you start with an ever-present God through whom we live and move and have our very being, there is no distance to traverse, there are no transactions necessary, and there is no pattern needed; there is only grace and love and peace. And there isn’t anyone who can come between you and that God, no matter how hard they try. This means that nobody else’s preferred styles or methods of worship are viewed as a threat to your own walk with God, so there is no longer any need to point the finger at others and call them heretics or false teachers because if God is this close to you, then God is this close to them.

One of our major issues is viewing difference as division. The differences between the Jewish and Gentile churches in the first century do not mean they were divided; instead, they could be united in their diversity through Jesus Christ. When we see differences as division, then the way to eliminate division means eliminating difference, which means discounting other people’s sincere interpretations of the Bible as demonic, contra to the gospel, and anathema.

But if we understand that unity is inherent within the body of Christ, something to be maintained through love and tolerance instead of attainted through debate and conformity, then we can stop pointing our spiritual swords at each other and point them at the real enemy: the idea that God is distant, that God is separate from us, or that God must be reached through correct ideas or pure traditions.

Paul wrote,

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Ephesians 4:1–3

Unity is inherent with the body, but this unity requires humility, gentleness, patience, tolerance, and love, none of which is compatible with “my way or the highway” or “my interpretations are the gospel truth” kind of thinking—and that goes for progressive churches as well.

Jesus told us something of this unity in John 17:

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. John 17:22–23

Jesus said he had given this unity to his disciples. He had given it to them. In other words, Jesus was in them, they were in Jesus, Jesus was in the Father, and the Father was in Jesus.

Unity, not separation.

When we understand that Abba loves us with the same intensity, quality, and duration that Abba loves the Son, then how could we ever get to the idea that we need to get anywhere except for right where we are? We don’t have to get back there to get to God. And we don’t have to progress to be somewhere else to get to God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are already here with us.

Let’s start by consenting to the unimaginable goodness and Love that is ever-present with us. This peace, which passes understanding, is far greater than the peace offered by theological fortresses, pure traditions, and precise patterns.

A Poem on Unity Instead of Separation

Leave behind computer, pen, and quill.

Leave behind papyrus, skin, and stone.

Join me in the silence before the first word.

Join me in the timeless and unplaceable before “Let there be.”

Before time and space, light and dark, land and sea

Before flower and tree, sun and moon, beast, bird, and fish

There was love. That’s where you are. That’s where I AM.

Beyond words as Word. Beyond feelings as Feeling.

Rest in me as I rest in you.

This silence, this rest, this being is Love. It is where everything good lies, and it is that from which all good flows.

Meet me in the place you already are.

Credits

Special thanks to Corri Johnson and Jordan Winkert for reading and editing what I write and for all of you who pitch in through liking, sharing, and otherwise contributing to the community here.