I’m sure folks who’ve read what I write, and maybe even some who have heard me speak at various times, are of a mind that I’m either a complicated person, or a pretentious jerk.
Truth is, I’m really a pretty simple individual. I might couch myself in similar ways to those Paul the Apostle used to describe himself at one point in the Bible.
I’m not going to go through the drama of quoting him verbatim. Just know, he put things in the following terms more or less.
He said (paraphrasing) “People see my writings and think I’m some high-handed, person with a big head, but when I came to you, I came in meekness preaching Christ, and Him crucified.”
You may want to argue my presentation of Paul’s statements about himself, and honestly, I’d like to hear it if you do. For my part, that’s pretty much what I took away from his writings when it comes to discussing himself (at least that’s a piece of it).
As I’ve already said, I count myself to be a simple man. I don’t look at myself as holier-than-thou. I’m certainly a “sinner saved by grace” if I’m saved at all (and I like to believe I am).
I’m not “officially” much of anything. I’m no Theologian, not an official apologist, heck, I barely qualify as a software developer in my view (though I can claim to be a Senior Software Engineer “by résumé.”).
That said, I’ve spent a good deal of time thinking on a variety of subjects.
One such topic is “The Church.”
On top of considering that venerable entity, I have either intentionally or accidentally been exposed to the musings of others on the concept.
I want to be clear. What I mean when I use the expression, “The Church” is more or less synonymous with “The Body of Christ.”
Though you have little reason to listen to me if you’re looking for a “church professional,” I want to talk about an oft espoused idea.
The thing about which I’m ranting today, is the consideration of “tracing an entity’s lineage from” some official or authoritative place.
Among certain groups, there’s a tendency for each to count itself the “one true Church.”
I’ll not argue the veracity of the claim overall for any of the aforementioned organizations.
I want only to discuss the concept of the origins of any given bundle of congregants.
My first consideration is obvious (and maybe barely worth uttering, since I don’t think many—if any—mark is as a claim).
Any party stating a “blood history” of its leadership is clearly off the mark.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand as a result of even a cursory Biblical reading—and even that is not truly necessary—that the potential for corruption of a genealogical descendant is at least a good possibility.
You can look to the Levites in the Old Testament for an example of this. I’ll not say more about that. If you haven’t done so already, take the time to do your own research and you should come to understand what I mean.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d argue this means you can pretty much only be talking about “spiritual stock” in any discussion of bodily beginnings.
This may seem to be a reasonable thing to you. As I view things, it’s just not.
“Why not?” you might want to inquire.
To begin with, counting an official line of succession in pretty much any group—spiritual or not—is bound to cause pause if that line is anything like “long in the tooth.”
I’ll not “pick on” any of the bodies about whom I may be accused of considering in this piece—though it would be pretty easy to do for most if not all of them.
In any such, you can pretty assuredly find horrible human beings masquerading as spiritual leaders.
The point here is this; in general the idea of some sort of connection to the original Christian Church through history—particularly spiritual or genetic heritage—is not a grand one.
The result of this to me at least is, when I hear folks making claims of some unbroken connection to the early Church, I’m pretty well bound to count them out as individuals whom one ought consider when it comes to seeking sound teaching and doctrine.
I know I may well be ridiculed for my position. Forgive me (or don’t), I don’t care.
Years ago, I was “drawn into” a particular church group. As usual, I’ll refrain from naming them here for multiple reasons. It seemed obvious to me they had a lot of what they laid down as reality, correct.
Along the way though, I discovered they held more than a few things they counted good and proper, in error.
I would argue to this day the same can be said of me.
Here’s the thing, I’m:
- Responsible for my own salvation, and
- Open to correction (though I may fail at being so at times)
Should one choose to teach error with the “intent to defraud,” that’s an entirely different thing compared to just being wrong in what one believes.
Getting back to the original discussion, if you think claiming even a spiritual connection over time to the early Church is a basis on which you should be trusted or in some wise counted infallible, I hope nobody is falling for your hokum.
For my part, I have a hard enough time reckoning my own salvation. Where I’m willing to try to help someone to achieve theirs, my primary thrust is to point them toward God in Christ.
Secondary to that, would be to direct them to Scripture (and by that, I mean “The Bible,” which I count inspired, and protected by God Almighty—whose name I do not use in vain when saying as much).
To sum up, if you believe some congregation of folks has “lineal heritage ties to” the early Church—genetically or through spiritual leaders—I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but why exactly should I care?
My concern is to look to Jesus Christ, in God more generally, and into those Words wherein salvation may be found. To me, yours should be likewise.
As usual, I hope you’re well. If not, I pray you become so in the very near future. Thanks for reading!