In the previous article (#7, January Tidings), we considered the gospel message, and where the emphasis was then, and ought to be now. We now switch topics a little, to consider our relationship to those around us.
How do Christadelphians differ from other people? Have you ever been asked that question? I am sure we all have, at some time or another: “What’s the difference between you and other people?” And what do we reply? Generally I think most of us begin by saying, “Well you see we believe the Bible. We believe the Bible is wholly inspired and infallible. We do not believe you go to heaven when you die, we believe that man is mortal. We believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the kingdom of God on earth, and baptism by immersion,” and so we go on. These are the points of difference, we say, between ourselves and other people. That is to say that we point, not to the quality of life as being the difference, but to the distinctiveness of our doctrine.
Manner of life
But, if you read any history of the very early church, when the great apologists were defending the Christian religion against their pagan detractors who were wanting to throw them to the lions, or burn them at the stake, you will find that they continually appealed not just to their religious dogmas as being the difference between themselves and their pagan neighbors, but to the manner of life of their converts as evidence of the truth of what they were teaching. They said over and over again, “Look at us, look at the Christians and see the differences for yourselves, and then ask yourselves if we are really the dangerous, demented maniacs that you think us to be.”
I had sent to me by a brother from the north of England the following quotation which I thought was interesting in this connection. It comes from a work called Science for the Citizen and was written by a man named Lancelot Hogben of whom I have not the slightest knowledge, but he makes the following citation from Simon’s authoritative work, English Sanitary Institutions:
“A conspicuous firstfruit of the Creed was that in all early Christian communities the giving of alms to the poor, of personal tending to the sick, of shelter to the homeless and generally of brotherly and sisterly help to persons in necessitous circumstances of mind, body or estate became, as it were, a characteristic ritual of the new faith.”
Now coming as it does from such a learned work as English Sanitary Institutions, I thought that was a very interesting tribute to the early church in its ethic and in the way it approached its fellows. What he is saying is that the very first thing that is noticed in the growth of Christianity, when the church of Christ went out into the world with its doctrine, is the kindness and benevolence with which it approached its fellow men. I have another quotation from the same source, quoting Cadoux’s book, The Early Church and the World, and this is the paragraph which I am interested in:
“In the first place then it must be clear even to the most casual observer that in the work of the pre-Constantinian church, whatever else we may or may not have, we certainly have a moral reformative movement on a scale and with a potency unparalleled at any other epoch before or since. Make whatever allowances you like for the exaggerations of Christian rhetoric, (and here he is referring to the Christian apologists who pointed to the good lives of their adherents as an evidence of their faith), for actual moral shortcomings of increasing prevalence and gravity, and for the lofty, ethical attainments of other reformers and their followers, yet it remains true that the achievements of the early church can defy comparison with those of any other religious or moral movement known to history.”
And that is what I mean in the title of this study The Ethos of the Church. Where it was getting them, what it was doing to them, how it was motivating them. There was nothing to equal the tremendous enthusiasm, and purity of life, and zeal for truth, and love for their neighbors, of these early Christians. And they were able to point to it and say, “If you want to know how we differ from our pagan neighbors look at our lives. Look at the kind of people we are.”
Dr. Blunt in his History of the Church of the first Three Centuries, maintains that the spread of the gospel was aided by three quite positive qualities in the Christian church.
- First of all, he says, “There were singular differences seen in Christian behavior.” The pagans were quite well able to see what was happening to these people who turned from idolatry to become Christians. They saw the mark in their lives. They saw immediately that it was making a difference to them. They no longer indulged in politics. They no longer joined the armed forces. These are facts of the early Christian church. It was something that distinguished them immediately as, indeed, it distinguishes Christadelphians today from their fellow men.
- Secondly, it was not just in the things they did not do. It was in the things they did, as well. Their persecutions, Blunt argues, drew attention to the sect and publicized their views. This helped to spread the gospel. The more they burnt them, the more they tossed them to the lions, the more people took notice of them. Here were men who would not relinquish their faith. Do what they liked to them, these men remained steadfast to their calling in Jesus Christ. And men took notice of them and said, “There is something in this. These people have something that the others have not got.”
- Thirdly, Blunt argues, their goodness and sincerity impressed even their opponents. What a lovely phrase that is: “Their goodness and sincerity impressed even their opponents.” Of Barnabas it was said: “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord” (Acts 11:24). Here seems to be the same kind of argument that Blunt is using for the spread of the Christian religion. This is what impressed people. “He was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,” and why does the writer add, “And much people was added unto the Lord”? Because they took notice of men like this, and they said, “Their religion is doing something to them.”
Now we, I think, although one should not generalize about this, tend to say rather apologetically: “You do not have to judge Christianity by Christians”; or even, “You do not have to judge Christadelphianism by Christadelphians.” Our line may occasionally take something like this form: “Get back to the Bible. If they speak not according to this word, never mind about anything else, we have got the truth. If you have come across the odd Christadelphian who you thought did not behave like a Christian well forget it, this is the Truth.” This is the line we may feel compelled to take.
But it is not the line Jesus took. Jesus did not say, “Do not judge Christianity by Christians.” On the contrary, he said, “Judge Christianity by Christians.” He said, “By their fruits shall you know them.” “Men do not gather figs of brambles, or grapes or thorn bushes. You judge the quality of the tree by the quality of its fruit. Therefore by the quality of their fruits you shall know them.” “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one towards another.” “If there is this spontaneous bubbling up of true love for men, because you have known the love of God, then men will know that you are my disciples,” Jesus said. “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
The early church was able to advance this witness to the truth of what they proclaimed. Can we? Dare we? “I cannot hear your words for the noise of your deeds,” somebody has said. Or in another simple sentence — actions speak louder than words. And we ought to be this kind of people, if we have the truth, which we believe we have. If we have the right doctrine, which we maintain we have, then we should be able to say, “Look at those Christadelphians. See the kind of people they are. See the kind of lives they lead, and you will see Christianity in action.”
Active social life
The first picture we have of the apostolic church is one of active social life. We have to go back for this to the very beginning of the book of Acts. Although the organization of the church grew, this feature of kindness and benevolence, of true social life, of fellowship or “sharing,” remained constant. So that Paul in Gal 2:10 says of himself, that when he went up to see James; Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars of the church at that time in Jerusalem, they said in effect, “Well, you do the ministry to the Gentiles and Cephas (or Peter) will be the minister to the circumcision.” “Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” Now that basic ethic remained with the church all the way through, “Only they would that we should remember the poor.” And Paul said, “I have never forgotten that anyway: that has always been part of my Christianity, to remember the poor.”
Now, we go to Acts again and we find a passage we have already referred to in another connection. We now look at this aspect of their generosity, of their sharing together, of their social life in the true sense of the word. “And all that believed were together and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:43-47).
Here they are then “having all things common”. Here is the abandon of the early faith. No man counted anything he possessed as being his own. They handed it all over, and they shared and shared alike; and they had great joy in this fellowship of ministration. The responsibility for the ministration at that time clearly was in the hands of the Apostles. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus — and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (Acts 4:32-35).
So there we have it, the “ethos,” (if you like the word) or the way of life (if you do not like the word) of the church in its budding infancy. Having all things common, sharing together, selling their possessions, bringing the price, giving it to the apostles, who saw that it was administered for the good of the whole community. But, of course, we know, as we have already seen in the study of the officers of the church, that it soon became necessary for the benevolence of the church to be administered in some other way. There had to be a sort of organized physical relief of needy members.
So the apostles delegated the work to the seven deacons, or the seven “ministers,” who were appointed to have the charge of this matter (Acts 6:3). They now became responsible in the church at Jerusalem for the administration to the needs of their poorer brethren. And then, later, we see collection being taken, where there was no compulsion except love for men and gratitude to God. So Paul writes: “Let every man lay by him according as God has prospered him. Now concerning the collection, for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God bath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor 16:1-2). And he goes on to say how he, with approved brethren, appointed by themselves, will take their largess up to the poor saints at Jerusalem.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One