The Path

The author Goebel Music once wrote a book that was intended to be the Mishnah for the Churches of Christ. The title was 'Behold The Pattern' and detailed how the New Testament creates an exact picture of how we should 'do' Church, and that anyone that wasn't following this pattern clearly was not serious about the life of faith.

After studying the New Testament over many years, and especially some of our in-depth studies of the last 18 months, I cannot find said pattern. There are almost no 'snapshots' of life in the early Church, only one-sided eavesdropping sessions on conversations between Paul and some the early communities of faith. Further, I find no New Testament evidence that Paul intended his letters to be normative in any way for 'the church' throughout all times and ages. Evidence certainly points to the contrary. He gives Timothy and Titus different lists for how to choose their leaders, based on the unique situations that Timothy faced in Ephesus and Titus on the Island of Crete. At the end of the book of Romans Paul points out Phoebe, a deaconess from Cenchrea, who his readers were to follow: both in word and example. But one finds it hard to believe that he would have said the same for Phoebe if the scene was shifted to Corinth, where there must have been some women causing trouble.

In the last few weeks as we have looked at leadership, I have been looking for those scriptural signposts that would point the way that we are to follow today. But in Acts 1, when replacing Judas Iscariot, they roll the dice, trusting God to give them the person they should choose. I think we would have a hard time convincing anyone to follow this path today. In Acts 6, when workers were needed to mediate a dispute about the widows and to distribute food, the community was directed to choose seven men so that the Apostles could continue teaching and preaching. Did these 7 guys have any say in the matter? Or were they simply volunteered whether they liked it or not? In Acts 15, when there is a large schism amongst the growing kingdom of believers regarding the role of circumcision, they apply to the elders and apostles in Jerusalem, rather than listen to Paul, who is with them. That is ironic because the writings of Paul has certainly become the arbiter of right and wrong for Church life today. And then, it is not Peter or Paul who solves this dispute, but rather James (Jacob?) who stands up and sums up his decision. Was this the Son of Boanerges or the brother of Christ or someone else all together? And why was it HIS role to speak the definitive word, instead of Peter or Paul?

Then, later, when giving Timothy and Titus instructions on choosing leaders...there are these qualities / qualifications that seem to most of us to be impossibly better than most of the folks we know. Titus, in particular, is told by Paul simply to choose these leaders. Not consult the community, create a committee, or hold a vote.

So, what is the pattern...roll the dice, give the community the choice, or have the obvious leader (Titus) or the not so obvious leader (James) the final voice? Behold, the pattern seems to me to be hidden in a foggy mist of variety.

So, I go back to ground that seems more solid. We are to be disciples. Followers of Christ. Ministers of Reconciliation. A holy priesthood. A royal nation. To love God, love others as we love ourselves, and allow the rest to flow out of this simple philosophy. To BE the people God called us to be. However we go about organizing ourselves as a people.