Tag: Church History

Communion at Home?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Sacraments, Worship

We trace our roots to the American Restoration Movement. Thomas & Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone were dedicated to seeing their churches return to simple Biblical Christianity. So many divisions had occurred in the Church over matters of opinion, and because over disagreements over things that are never enumerated in Scripture.

The Restoration Movement sought to restore simple Christianity in order to bring unity to all Christians everywhere. And one of the major ways they did this was through the Lord’s Supper.

If you grew up in the Church of Christ like me, you might be surprised to learn that the practice of the Lord’s Supper was once a battleground for division. We assume it’s always been done this way and there’s really nothing to consider that is new. But in the not-so-distant past the Lord’s Supper was a point of division, not unity. The Campbells ultimately broke their denominational ties over the issue of who could partake of the Lord’s Supper. The denomination they were a part of required people to pass a test and receive a coin as proof that they were worthy of partaking, and only ordained elders were allowed to distribute the elements. The Campbells saw no such exclusion in Scripture and welcomed all who professed faith in Christ to participate.

The desire to welcome all at the Lord’s Table led the Campbells, and similarly Barton Stone, to seek a way of practicing Christianity that was consistent with the Scriptures, and nothing more. They sought to unite in Christ, and in Christ alone. Nothing other than faith in Christ would be required for fellowship.

Some Christian traditions are struggling right now with how to share the Lord’s Supper. Sincere belief that only some can distribute the elements and only some can partake is causing real struggles for some congregations. But we view Scripture differently.

Here are some reasons why you can (and should) take communion at home, and why I believe you can do so on more than just Sunday.

  • If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, you are ordained by God as one of his priests. (1 Peter 2:5-9)
  • All the early believers were committed to “breaking bread” in their homes (Acts 2:42, 46)
  • It seems that the early church gathered to break bread on the first day of the week, at least in Troas (Acts 20:7). Historical writings from the 1st and 2nd century tell us that the practice varied from place to place.
  • Notice, however, that the church was ok with eating the Lord’s Supper after midnight, meaning this meal took place on Monday morning (Acts 20:7-11 shows they “broke bread and ate” after midnight).
  • Luke informs us that the early church had the practice of eating the Lord’s Supper daily (Acts 2:46).

I’m not trying to change your theology of the Lord’s Supper with this article, but I do want you to rest assured that you aren’t doing anything contrary to Biblical practice if you choose to eat the Lord’s Supper with your family at home.

I’m praying home church will be a blessing to you this week. Don’t forget to tune in to either our website, our Facebook page, our YouTube channel for some announcements, a time of prayer, and a message from God’s word on Sunday at 10:00am.

Women Praying & Prophesying With Their Heads Covered?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in 1 Corinthians

Why does Paul ask women to cover their heads while praying and prophesying? (1 Cor. 11:2-16)  Most people will assume something cultural is going on here, and they would be correct! But what exactly?

Women’s hair was seen as a major object of lust in the ancient world, as well as in some cultures in the middle east today (remember a lot of the Bible was written to people in middle eastern cultures). It seems foreign because hair doesn’t really cause us to lust. But as a means for cultural understanding, let’s equate the “uncovered head” of these women to wearing a very revealing bikini.

Now imagine someone dressing in such a way in front of the congregation on Sunday morning. Now you’re starting to understand the problem. In the ancient world an uncovered head meant you were sexually promiscuous; not such a crazy idea because this is one of the ways pagan temple prostitutes would wear their hair. The idea of a bikini in worship in our culture, and an uncovered head in theirs, is clearly inappropriate.

One of the greatest physical shames a woman could have in this culture was having her hair shaved off. What Paul is saying here is that if you see nothing wrong with uncovering your head in a worship assembly then you might as well go ahead and shave your head. The female readers would understand the level of shame Paul is equating to what they were doing in the assembly.

Why were they doing this? Keep in mind that churches met in homes, not church buildings. It was perfectly acceptable for a woman to have her head uncovered at home in front of her family, just like you might walk around in clothing at home that you would never wear in a public setting. When a more formal gathering (worship assembly) gathered in the same homes, it seems that some of the women were leaving their heads uncovered – again, inappropriate for male non-family members present. 

This was new territory for most of these Corinthian people. We are having a public gathering in a private home. How do we act? Paul here is teaching modesty within the assembly. How do we know this is the assembly? Paul tells us so in verse 16. “Churches” is the Greek word ekklesiai, the plural form for “assembly.” There is no assembly that practices uncovered heads (again cultural) while women are praying and prophesying.

But did you notice what is assumed in this passage? Women are clearly praying and prophesying (v. 5) openly in the presence of men in the assembly (v. 16), and that is totally ok! It is never questioned if women can pray or prophesy in the assembly, but rather can they do so with their heads uncovered. 

Somehow, women praying and prophesying in the assembly of 1 Corinthians 11 is not a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. But how can that be? We’ll take a closer look at that next week. But as a starting point, read all of 1 Corinthians 14 while asking yourself this question: 

What goal does Paul have in writing this chapter?

The Church and Politics: What We Haven’t Learned

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Christianity, Church History

As we explore how the history of the Church affects the practice of the Church today, we need to take a look at culture. No congregation is immune from cultural influence, and indeed it needs to be influenced to some degree in order to reach the lost. But at various times in the history of the Church, culture has ruled the day. I frequently tell people when politics and Church combine, the Church always suffers. This is the case with the examples contained in this article.

In 1054 AD an event historians refer to as “The Great Schism” occurred in Constantinople, forever changing the Church, and creating a wound that took until the 20th century to begin to heal. The “West” division of the church, based in Rome, began to be viewed as the seat of power in the Church. This political position, in many ways, led to the Roman Church passing edicts that affected the church as a whole. For the purposes of this writing we don’t need to dive too deeply into specifics, but many of these were received negatively by the East from a cultural standpoint.

In the book Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, Mark Noll summarizes the cultural divide between the East and West.

“As early as the end of the first century, it was possible to perceive pointed differences between major representatives of what would one day be called West and East. Thus, historian Henry Bettenson thinks that the Epistle of Clement sent from Rome to Corinth about the year 96 displays ‘the emergence of the characteristic Roman Christianity. Here we find no ecstasies, no miraculous ‘gifts of the Spirit,’ no demonology, no preoccupation with an imminent ‘Second Coming.’ The Church has settled down in the world, and is going about its task ‘soberly, discreetly, and advisedly.” By the end of the second century, such ‘Roman’ characteristics were thoroughly matched by ‘Greek’ tendencies arising from the other end of the Mediterranean.”

Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, Mark Noll

As you can clearly see, cultural differences influenced the beliefs and practice within the two branches of the Christian Church. At this meeting in 1054 representatives from both groups excommunicated the other which lead to the body of Christ, the Church, being divided. This was exacerbated by the Crusades which indiscriminately killed Muslims, Jews, and even other Christians because they looked different than the invading Europeans. European Christians were killing Middle Eastern Christians because they looked and sounded different.

Sadly this was not the only time in Church history that we see cultural differences affecting the unity of the Church. We’ll return to history next week, but I want to end with a modern look. What cultural issues are causing division in the church today? We are on the heels of one of the largest denominations wrestling with homosexuality in part because culture has become combined with the Church.

But let’s get personal. What cultural issue is in play in your congregation that is, or could cause division? Is it who someone votes for? Is it cultural stereotypes placed on people groups? And here’s the real question: How do you go about addressing the problem?

What is the Best Way to Read the Bible?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Church History, How to Read the Bible

Last week we looked at examples from the New Testament of people coming together in community to study the Scriptures. We also looked at the first few centuries after the New Testament to see the council at Nicea surrounding the deity of Christ. Christians came together around the Scriptures in order to clarify beliefs and put an end to false teaching. This council resulted in what we commonly call The Nicene Creed.

This community study of the Scriptures happened on many other occasions as well. As the years passed, again the Church saw need of solidifying doctrine amongst all believers. The decision was made to collect the writings held highly by the community and combine them into an authoritative collection. There was some debate concerning some of the writings we have today in our New Testament, and some differences still exist today (does your Bible contain the Apocrypha?) But when the Church came together in community, the most trusted writings were compiled to solidify the documents of our faith – the New Testament.

We are so used to having our sacred writings in one book. Can you imagine going through life and having to search from city to city to find a copy of John’s Gospel? The fact that you own a Bible, or have access to a Bible online, or in app form is because 1600 years ago the Church, the Body of Christ, came together in community in order to compile (not create) the writings we know and love.

Today, we must take the same approach toward interpreting Scripture. Renowned theologian, seminary professor, and author Scot McKnight has a suggestion for how we are to read and interpret Scripture today in his book, The Blue Parakeet. In this quote, he speaks of the “Great Tradition,” that is the understanding of the historical Christian community.

“I suggest we learn to read the Bible with the Great Tradition. We dare not ignore what God has said to the church through the ages (as the return and retrieval folks often do), nor dare we fossilize past interpretations into traditionalism. Instead, we need to go back to the Bible so we can move forward through the church and speak God’s Word in our days in our ways. We need to go back without getting stuck (the return problem), and we need to move forward without fossilizing our ideas (traditionalism). We want to walk between these two approaches. It’s not easy, but I contend that the best of the evangelical approaches to the Bible and the best way of living the Bible today is to walk between these approaches.”

Scot McKnight, The Blue Parakeet

The history of the church shows that Scripture has been best interpreted in community. When believers come together and wrestle with the Scriptures to find truth, error is avoided, God is honored, and Scripture is upheld and interpreted in a relevant way. As history and the New Testament has shown us, it is the best way.