Is Primitivism Still Relevant?
How do 21st century Christians know the acceptable and appropriate way to worship God, determine the work of a church, and live in a culture seemingly far removed from the one in which the Apostles of Jesus worked and taught? While there are many variances, the basic answer to this question is chosen from two different philosophies: 1. Using the New Testament as a pattern by imitating what is found within it; 2. Using the New Testament as a guide, allowing practices to adapt to modern culture.
The first of these philosophies can be described as a primitivist approach. With the word primary as its root, this idea seeks to mimic the practices of those from an earlier time; namely, it patterns practices after commands and examples found within the New Testament. The idea is taken from the teachings of the apostles, such as what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (II Timothy 1:13). In this philosophy, “authority” plays an important role. Advocates insist that before a practice can be carried out, there must be proof that it flows from direct teaching or an approved example given within the New Testament. Beliefs or practices that do not meet these criteria are thus viewed as unauthorized and excluded.
While this method of seeking authority has never been mainstream, recent years have seen some of its former advocates dismiss the approach. CENI (command, example, necessary inference), the term to which some have relegated the idea, is viewed as unsustainable. Instead, some who once sought authority in this way have moved on to the second philosophy of adaptation. Such a move beckons the following question: “Is primitivism still relevant?”
In answering this question, it is important to first understand God’s view of His commands. Four times within the recorded words of Jesus, He states, “Keep My commandments” (Matthew 19:17; John 14:15, 14:21, 15:10). In the remainder of the New Testament, the same idea is given on nine more occasions. The word keep is more than obedience; it means to guard. To guard means keeping change from occurring. Consider this from the standpoint of a museum housing a prized painting. If valuable enough, guards are placed at the painting for two primary purposes: 1. They are not to allow it to change owners (theft); 2. They are not to allow change of subject (vandalism, etc.). Their purpose is to keep the work of art just as the artist created it. God makes it clear this is how one is to view His commandments.
The New Testament also gives a hearty endorsement to using examples as a means of learning how to keep the commands. Consider the words of Paul to the Corinthians: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Corinthians 11:1). Not everything recorded in the New Testament is given for duplication. For example, the Corinthians were given precise instructions for an assembly where tongue speaking was employed (see I Corinthians 14). Just a few verses earlier, Paul taught that the ability to speak in tongues would end when the Bible was completed (I Corinthians 13:8-10). Since the situation changed, the commands are no longer applicable. Such occasions are minimal within the New Testament. Using examples to establish authority is found in situations where “plain old Christians” in no special circumstance are under consideration. In these cases, the example provides a picture of how commands are to be carried out until the Lord’s return.
If commands and examples are not the way of establishing authority, what is the alternative? One idea would be that God will communicate what He wants in means other than the Bible; however, this idea contradicts Paul’s teaching that the completed word of God is “the perfect” (I Corinthians 13:10). It would imply that the Scriptures are insufficient for modern instruction. If this idea is dismissed, the only other alternative left is to determine authority by what the current generation of thinkers considers important. In such a situation, the Bible is viewed as important but not exclusive. While general principles can be gained from it, it is up to modern Christians to determine what is considered acceptable based on the present conditions of society. This philosophy allows humanity to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable based on its own views.
A survey of the Bible does not support the conclusion that God has left it up to His human creation to establish its own authority. Old Testament accounts of Noah’s ark, Israel’s tabernacle, and multitudinous instructions on feasts, sacrifices, and dealings with one another show God delivering minute details that He fully expected to be carried out. New Testament instructions to both individuals and churches reveal a similar focus on fulfilling God’s plans to His specifications. Never are these details viewed as some sort of rote legalism; instead, they demonstrate a love for God as well as faith that His way is the best way.
Centuries ago, the nation of Israel struggled during the time when judges ruled its land. The summation of its problem is found in one statement: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” May modern Christians find comfort in knowing that God’s expectations do not change with each new generation. The teachings given to “plain old Christians” in the 1st century to make them more like Jesus Christ are the same teachings that will make those of the 21st century like Jesus Christ. May each Christian cling to these in faith, knowing that they are the way to please God and to become more like Him.
