The next few entries will be a response to the following article by Rick Wade entitled, Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church at http://www.probe.org/content/view/911/77/

Will the Real Church Fathers
Please Stand?

Enlightenment philosophers taught us to see the world as a collection of scientific facts, to look forward instead of back to the wisdom of the past, and to see the individual as the final authority for what is true. The ideal is the individual who examines the raw data of experience with no prior value commitments, with a view to discovering something new. Unfortunately, knowledge was pursued at the expense of wisdom. The past had little relevance. What could those who lived in the past tell us that would be relevant for today?{5} Besides, the church dominated people in the past. Such superstition was no longer to be allowed to rule our lives. Scripture and Traditions of the Early Church, Rick Wade

I guess the reason this article strikes me is because the beginning of my end within the a capella Church of Christ came when I began to read the church fathers in their entirety.

I had only seen a kind of proof-texting in my life. When something they said bolstered a modern claim of the Church of Christ they were used. I began to read their writings to see if they had the same attitude and understanding that I was taught. I wanted to see if in context the writings were consistent with how they were being used. What I found forever taught me that little in the Church of Christ reflected the first century.

This hit home to me recently when I was talking to a friend who still preaches in the Church of Christ. He started to tell me about some papers he had written for his master’s class at ACU. He said he had been looking at church history.

I became excited and I asked what he had found. He began to talk about the 1800’s and I realized he wasn’t talking about Ireneaus or Justin the Martyr but instead Moses Lard and Alexander Campbell. Why is this? What type of thinking leads to this view of church history?

I found my eyes open when I entered the world of the early church. I found their Christ-centered message refreshing to my soul. I realized that the group I grew up in said they wanted to restore the early church but didn’t want to go back and understand how they responded to the message of the Christ.

How can someone say they restored something that was created in the 1800’s? No first century Christian would recognize the Church of Christ attitude about instrumental music. None would understand the segment of the Church of Christ who says the Spirit doesn’t indwell. How could one claim that which comes from the enlightenment as the early church? How can one say that rationalism had any place in the infancy of the church, that scientific thought guided them?

Rick Wade helps me understand why it happened, a distrust of the supernatural. People had a false belief that we could figure it all out and fix everything. I can see why it happened. Those who came before had the idea that science was the answer. We live on the other side of that myth. We have discovered that the world didn't get better, if anything life has gotten worse. I hope we realize that the church doesn't look more like the first century, it looks less.

We would be blessed if we traveled back to those fathers on a regular basis to see how they understood the message they had received. This effort might insure that no one says they are contending for the faith once delivered when they are actually defending a system constructed in the frontier days of the United States.

The article goes a long way in explaining why but this doesn't give us an excuse to continue down this path. If anything it should convict us that we must change courses for the health of the church. We need to discover Polycarp and the rest of our brothers and sisters in faith. We need to let them stand.