Church History

A Study Paper Prepared for the Curriculum Consultation Committee

Prepared by the Department of Religious Education
October, 1967

It might be helpful to first state the general purpose of the paper and the limits of its objective. To attempt a paper of any size on the subject of “church history” is to immediately suggest the impossibility of presenting anything but a severely circumscribed discussion of whatever is undertaken. Specifically, then, this paper considers four areas of church history, chosen because of the problems raised by some traditional RLDS approaches to these areas. First is the nature and development of the primitive church. Second is the idea of the apostasy and the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church. The third area considered is that of the historical origins and context of the Restoration movement itself with particular attention given to the theme of particularity. And finally, the paper considers the way the church must begin to approach and understand her existence and history.

It is the objective of the paper to both analyze some of these traditional positions and to suggest their weaknesses. In this, it is difficult to move too far beyond the critical role, recognizing that the constructive interpretive task is frequently much more involved than is the initial critical task. The discussion can at best be incomplete, therefore, with much left unsaid. It is important to note that points which the immediate paper leaves incomplete will be picked up by other position papers. It is suggested that the paper be read with these consciously limitations in mind.

The analysis as here presented should be taken for what it is, analysis of certain historical interpretations and positions, and not necessarily as finally evaluative of the larger issues from with these positions and interpretations have been selected.

It would seem crucial to this paper that at the very outset something be said with regard to the Christian understanding of history. History, or the idea of history is uniquely important to the Christian understanding of life. The Judeo Christian tradition understands life and the events of life as an ongoing movement with meaning, all that exists and happens is regarded from an eschatological perspective. And not just part of life, but all of life is so regarded within this perspective. Life is a continuing stream, a contingent stream, a flow and a development that cannot be isolated and discounted at any point.

The primary category of this understanding is that of “Geschichte,” a German word that at best has a poor English equivalent. Perhaps it might be rendered as the social personal aspect or dimension of history as distinct from “historic” which refers to the bare chronicle of events. That is, history understood in categories of human interaction and human community. The real point of Christian historical consciousness is that of the continuing and contingent human community.

Into this flow, at what the church has called “the meridian of time,” came Christ, God Incarnate. That is to say, into the human-personal community God revealed himself in human-personal categories. Here two points stand crucial to our understanding of the incarnation. First, it is only in the human-personal category that we can know God. Second, it must be understood that such revelation could have come in no other way than that of Incarnation.

A serious difficulty which has plagued the church down through the ages is that of the docetic-gnostic heresy in which the human-personal meaning and experience of Christ is subordinated or lost to a trans-historical and spiritualistic understanding of Christ, and of revelation generally. Propositional revelation, for example, is one type of trans-historical revelation. By “trans-historical” we mean beyond or different from the experience of historical-personal existence. In this the meaning and nature of Incarnation as revelation is lost and with it the real import of the church as first of all a historical-personal entity.

We bother to introduce this concern at this time because it is so crucial to our very approach to history. It is on the basis of this understanding that the Christian determines what after all is the crucial dimension of history. If we say then, that the primary revelation of God is in incarnation and the primary experience and remembrance of God is in historical-personal categories, then this has important implications for how we are to approach the areas of historical concern to which we now turn.

I. The Primitive Church

The Christian church in the first century after the death of Christ was characterized by quite limited organizational structure and institutional formality. The church, or people of God, were bound together primarily by the new life which they shared in Christ Jesus. Here was a community of spirit, bearers of a new style of life, and it was this new style of life rather than any particular organizational form or pattern which was the essential mark of the early or primitive church.

The church knew itself by the term “koinonia,” or “fellowship.” The term which appears most often in the New Testament is the word “ecclesia,” which has been inadequately (if not improperly) translated with the English term “church.” “Ecclesia” meant community or fellowship, and did not have the institutional overtones that are conveyed to us through the use of the word “church” in the English New Testament. The term “ecclesia” was a natural one for the early Saints to use as it was commonly used by the Jewish community in referring to themselves as the “people of God.”

It would be inaccurate to imply here that the fellowship did not organize itself because it is quite evident that it did have a semblance of organization and structuring from the very beginning. People together for any purpose need some sense of relation and function, some manner of directing their life together. Such organization as did emerge in the primitive church, however, must be understood in a loose sense, with great variation from area to area and from group to group. The congregation at Corinth, for examples would have a different organization than, say, the congregation at Antioch, and so on. In other words, organization was very much a local affair, developed to meet the particular needs of the area and the situation. Perhaps the most obvious example of what we are talking about here is to be found in the differences that persisted between the Jewish congregation and the Gentile congregation. There is indication that as long as the church was primarily composed of Jewish Christians the organization of the community was essentially an extension of the synagogue. This was understandably not necessarily to be so with the Greek congregations.

The New Testament itself reflects this diversity in that it does not present us with anything that could be called a consistent picture of organization. A particular case in point would be the question of the offices or officers which are occasionally mentioned in the New Testament. The varying and sketchy accounts which we do have make it very difficult to consider such references as representative of a consolidated end common institutional pattern in the primitive church. Rather these are more a discussion of the various talents and abilities of individual members of the fellowship, some gifted in one ministry and some in another. Here was the early recognition, too, of the diversified nature of ministry and appreciation for the need for such diversification. But in this, situational need more than organizational uniformity was the guiding principle. Even the apostles were a loosely structured group with indication that the number varied. Elders were for the most part just that-they were the elderly “patriarchs” of the community. Deacons and deaconesses are mentioned but we know little of their function.

Finally, with regard to the organizational question, it perhaps is helpful to say again that the question itself was not of primary concern to the primitive church in the first place. One reason would certainly be their expectation of Christ’s immediate return. But even more important was the fact that their primary sense of self-understanding centered around the new life of fellowship they shared together in the name of Jesus Christ.

What has been suggested here with regard to form and structure in the primitive church can also be said with regard to the doctrine and belief of the church. Here, too, we find a slow process of development and change. Doctrine and belief, while finding a common ground in the event of Jesus Christ, involved the response of men, men of differing concerns and in differing situations. The New Testament again bears witness to this by the diversity and even at points the contradiction to be found in the writings. But also, the New Testament canon itself emerged largely in response to the church’s need to clarify and consolidate its message and belief.

The question and idea of restoration comes before us at this point. A common understanding of this theme among Reorganized Latter Day Saints is that what happened in 1830 with Joseph Smith was a restoration of a particular organization and institutional entity which existed at one time as the original church of Christ. With reference to the preceding discussion we must seriously question the viability of such an understanding on the grounds that such an entity did not exist in the first place. There was no one church in the institutional and structural sense to be lost, let alone reinstituted. The church grew and became organized as the particular circumstance demanded and the necessity for unity and clarity increased. Historical analysis of this development reveals direct connection between function and form, with the latter coming into existence in response to the needs of the former. This would suggest that any structural characteristic, either at the time of the primitive church or today, stands on its own merits in relation to the mission of the church.

There is another sense in which the idea of restoration has been applied, however and this also bears considerable attention. The understanding to which we here refer is based on the argument that the fellowship itself could be lost and that it in fact was lost in the apostasy. That is, what is said to have been totally lost to the world was the new life style which Christ initiated, and it is this which was once again brought into the world in the Restoration event of 1830 and which the RLDS church, therefore, uniquely offers the world today.

Restoration understood in this historical-personal sense, while considerably more appreciative of the primary essence of the church, does not remain true to the Christian understanding of history as it has been discussed in the first part of this paper. If common understanding of the nature and import of the founding experiences of the Restoration movement can be taken so normative for evaluation, our evaluation must be that, finally, these were trans-historical experiences. If it is meant further that these experiences did indeed reinstitute and re-establish that which was initially established in the Incarnation, then this is essentially a denial of the necessity for the Incarnation in the first place. Inasmuch as these founding “experiences are trans-historical in nature, they do not qualify as incarnational revelation.

As a final thought with regard to the nature of the primitive church, it is perhaps also necessary to observe that to refer to a church which existed since the time of Adam is only permissible if this is referring to that segment of humanity which has down through the ages been responsive to the call to obedience. It cannot refer to an institution or organization in time and space. It is questionable whether it can even justifiably refer to a self-conscious group or fellowship other than the Hebraic self-consciousness. We would have to be critical of the accounts in the Book of Mormon also if these were interpreted to mean that the church as we presently know it, with a particular institutional identity, was existent before and immediately following Christ’s visit to America.

Historically speaking, then, we must view the institutional church as developing slowly, changing and consolidating to meet the demands of the situation. Church organization and institutionalization of form and doctrine has from the beginning been a dynamic and responsive thing rather than static and given.

III. The Roman Catholic Church and the Idea of Apostasy

The emergence of what we call the Roman Catholic church cannot be pinpointed in history with any degree of exactness. As far along as the middle of the second century Rome had limited significance in the broad church other than the fact that this was Rome and the tradition of Peter’s visit there. By the time of Constantine (fifth century) the church in Rome had gained considerably in prestige and power, but was by no means the primary center of Christianity. Such centers as Antioch, Alexandria, Byzantium (Constantinople), and Damascus continued to be equally important and influential in church affairs. With the beginning of the sixth century Roman ascendance began to emerge more dramatically, climaxed by the split of the East and West churches by the early part of the eighth century (the roots of the present day Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church). It is with this split that an entity which might be indentified as the Roman Catholic church begins to appear. But the type of denominational identity that we today are familiar with was yet foreign to the thinking of the times. Here rather was the Christian church, with different centers or areas vying for influence and prestige.

It is difficult to point to church history, then, and say that at this point or that the Roman Catholic church, or some similar body emerged with distinctive clarity. The process by which such an entity did emerge is complex and long. It is further difficult, with this understanding, to point to history and say that here or there apostasy began if such apostasy is to be identified with the Roman Catholic Church. The very category of apostasy, however, requires our careful attention.

It is ever a temptation of the human mind to polarize life into the “good” and the “bad,” the black and white. This tendency has been true of that element of sectarian thought which maintains a strong concern for the “true” church idea. In this, the tendency is to see the history of the faith in terms of two identifiable forces of good and evil, each with their human institutions and representatives. Thus, there is the true church and the false church, the “church of Christ and the church of the devil.”

Some understandings of the “apostasy” theme in Restoration thought can be said to involve the kind of oversimplification described above, with the good and the true church which Christ established falling victim to the forces of evil in the world and subsequently disappearing from the world. As indicated earlier, such understanding often reflects a concern for institutional trueness, but also can involve the broader issue of the church as fellowship. Whatever the terms of understanding, the central issue in this thinking is that the early church, at some point in history, ceased to be in the good category and fell into the bad. Here would seem to be an “all-or-nothing” approach to history which must be questioned from several standpoints.

With reference to the preceding discussion, the church emerged slowly throughout the years. Such developments as did take place, good and bad, did so in the context of an overall movement of the church. The influx of barbarian tribesmen to the ranks of the church, for example, certainly did change the constitution of church membership. But it is untrue to say that because of this event the spirit of the Christ was lost to the church or that the church was lost to the world. While the ranks of the church certainly were dangerously expanded, and barbarian influence felt at many points, yet it cannot be defended that there was an absolute loss of faithful witness to the gospel This particular phenomenon, while regarded by some as the heathenizing of the church, might with perhaps greater validity be regarded as the Christianization of the barbarians.

A theory of apostasy which envisions the disappearance from the earth of the essential church must be criticized on two accounts. First of all, if proposed in institutional categories, such an understanding involves a simplified understanding of the primitive church and the development of the church down through the succeeding centuries. It is mistaken to consider that there was a pure and original church, either in the institutional or doctrinal sense, to be lost or changed in the first place.

But even further, the validity of such preoccupation with institutional and structural concerns is questionable. It is perhaps illustrative of the point in mind here to refer to the struggle the Jewish community faced with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon. For many good Israelites, the destruction of the temple and the end of the sacrificial rituals meant the end of their faith and religious tradition. But Judaism discovered again what had been true from the beginning, that God was not limited to any structure or set of practices and dogma, and that what it meant to be the people of God went far beyond such institutionalization of religion.

Secondly, there are very real difficulties with an understanding of the church which suggests that a total apostasy could occur at all. -From the beginning the church has been subject to error and heresy at all levels. Speaking now of the broad church, however, such apostasy as has occurred is more accurately understood in terms of local development or in the sense of some segment of the church. That is to say, apostasy always threatens the church in terms of the particular, and many such particular can be identified in history. But it is another thing to generalize from any particular(s) or even all of the/particulars and say that the church as such has gone into apostasy. As has been suggested above, such generalizations of this nature as have been popular in Restoration tradition are based on a simplistic understanding of church history and do not always stand up under historical criticism.

Perhaps most important of all in this totalistic interpretation of apostasy, however, is to understand again the Christian perspective of history. It is the person communal history that is primary. Even more important, it is that personal-communal history that has as its point of initiation the Incarnation. To suggest that this essence has been lost is to say in effect that the event of the Incarnation has been nullified, which is contrary to the very understanding of the Incarnation as the central saving event for all time and all men.

It also follows from such a suggestion that if the church were completely lost the only way for it to once more be upon the earth is for the Incarnation to occur all over again. In light of this it should be recognized that the founding experiences of the Restoration movement, including the angelic visitation, the grove experience, and the reception of the Book of Mormon, cannot claim equivalence with the Incarnation. As essentially trans-historical experiences, to claim for them the effect of a type of total restoration is to involve a type of docetic-gnostic interpretation of Christ and the revelation in Christ as discussed in the first part of this paper.

It is therefore with considerable question that we must regard the traditional interpretations which claim that the essential trueness (either in the institutional sense or in the community sense) of the church was at one point in history in fact lost and then restored again in the 19th century. It is questionable both from its understanding of the nature of apostasy and from its understanding of church history.

III. The Restoration in the 19th Century

Any attempt to analyze the history of the Restoration movement has to begin with an understanding of the historical situation in which the movement had its origins. The Restoration had its beginnings in a particular cultural and mental context, and the nature of this context, or more specifically the 19th century American religious scene, had much to do with the direction in which the Restoration movement was to develop.

An important aspect of this religious-social context was a prevalent concern for finding the true church. In a situation of proliferating denominationalism the question of particularity and uniqueness was a crucial question for a movement that was to maintain any sense of identity. This was the period of the Second Great Awakening with new movements springing up all over the frontier. That Joseph Smith and so many of his followers should so strongly reflect this concern for particularity is understandable.

Related to this question of particularity was the primitivist concern to recapture the “ancient order of things,” in which the “true” church was identified with certain institutional and doctrinal particularities. The questions which the early Restoration movement asked then, and questions which the church today has inherited from its past are questions shaped and influenced by this religious climate of the 19th century. This applies both to the concern for uniqueness in the first place and for the categories in which uniqueness came to be defined.

It is yet necessary to go on to remark that many themes of the Restoration claiming uniqueness have not always proven to be so when subjected to critical historical analysis, and are to be found in many other movements both of the 19th century and contemporarily. For example, the Restoration interest in the North American Indians, with particular concern for a theory of Hebrew origins, was a very popularly speculated question at the time of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon (e.g. Ethan Smith and his View of the Hebrews).

Further, there was common interest in millennial speculation and various groups formed solely around such concerns. Similarly were there many communitarian efforts, some of which resembled the efforts of the Saints. Even today one can go to Mennonite teachings and find the same type of concern for the exemplifying community that is to be found in much RLDS teaching. And, too, there is frequent encounter with a concern for the kingdom of God on earth, this theme being particularly strong in the Puritan heritage. A very interesting point that deserves some attention is the fact that Walter Scott of the Campbellites had early formulated a conception of the gospel along the lines suggested by our six principles of the gospel.

The concept of Restoration deserves special attention. It is to be noted that the Anabaptists of the Reformation talked much of being the church of the restitution, their concern being that of getting back to the teachings and organization of the early church. Some Anabaptists even taught that this would need to be accomplished through a prophet who the Lord himself would raise up to restore his church at the right time. The concerns of the Anabaptists continued in sectarian Protestantism down through the years. There was a resurgence of restorationism in England and Scotland a few years prior to the organization of the Restoration church under Joseph Smith. It is a point of considerable importance that Alexander Campbell had association with the Scottish restorationists and came to America with a concern to establish a type of true restored church.

Perhaps the most contemporary illustration has to do with the belief in many RLDS circles that this church is unique in its belief in modern revelation. While it might be maintained that our particular conception about how revelation occurs is unique–and here a question of just how crucial this is would have to be raised–certainly most if not all other Christian denominations believe in modern revelation and testify of experience of same.

It must be said, therefore, that the idea of uniqueness or particularity needs to be treated with great care, because the Restoration churches are not unique in many areas where they have claimed to be. Many such conclusions of uniqueness must be attributed in part to the influence of the historical context in which the church grew, and in part to a certain unfamiliarity about church history and the teachings of other denominations.

A second point which needs to be remembered with regard to the Restoration church is that its own development was gradual, abounding in change and adjustment. It was certainly no completed divine pattern from above, received and instituted in one fell swoop. There is ample indication of experimentation in the early years. What is presently recognized as the organization of the church has come to us through a process of selection and tradition. This would suggest that the process of adjustment and change? under God, is still open to the church today. This historical fact coupled with our observations of the early church further suggests that church form and organization is not a given entity not subject to human judgment and adjustment.

IV. Our Stance to Our Own History

It is necessary initially for RLDS to accept more readily the humanness of their own history, realizing that it is subject to human judgment and action, and consequent human error. In other words, it is necessary for the church to free itself from a rigorous interpretation of history and open itself to dealing creatively and openly with history without feeling that its foundations as a Christian community are being threatened. The point, of course, is that we cannot dare or hope to establish the validity and justification of the church on the basis of some precise historical ordering. Such effort is subject to the same criticism as has been leveled against the concern to discover the historical Jesus.

A most important aspect of the church’s self-understanding has to do with how it is to regard the founding vision and experiences. It has become clear that our understanding of just what happened here is at best incomplete and ambiguous. Much historical research and analysis lies between us and a clearer picture of these founding events than is presently available to us. But while we are at this time unable to offer but the vaguest of interpretations, the church can yet do much to facilitate the interpretive? process by the attitude it is willing to adopt towards these founding experiences.

As it is becoming evident that some major reinterpretations are going to be necessary, such necessity should be accepted with the same appreciation for the fallibility of tradition as has hopefully been exercised throughout the rest of this paper. The church needs to become sensitive to the conditioning contexts out of which these traditional accounts and interpretations have come to us. And further, of course, it is hoped that such sensitivity will open the door to a more relative understanding of the founding experiences. Simply, it is necessary for the church to be ready to accept these experiences for whatever they are finally discovered to be, recognizing again what is and is not important to our meaningful existence as part of the body of Christ.

In addition to its stand on its own tradition, the church needs to come to see and identify itself within the larger church and the history of the church throughout the ages. We are part of a total stream, affected by that stream and in our own way affecting that stream. And as part of the total stream it is demanded of us, as it is demanded of every denomination, that we in our own way be faithful to the gospel. Thus whatever is to be distinctive about us, whatever is to be uniquely important or special about us needs come from the degree to which we are faithful to the Lord of all the church. The same call and possibility can be said to lay before every denomination. Uniqueness and particularity is not something that is inherent and ontologically given.

And finally, the idea of Restoration if it is to be used meaningfully, must refer to that process of response and renewal which every church or denomination needs be continually involved in. We need exercise caution in seeking to limit its meaning to the tradition that somehow this particular institution has over all other institutions re-established, or is the reestablishment of, some total entity to be identified as the true church of Christ. The meaning and nature of the church goes far beyond this, and history amply demonstrates that there is poor historical foundation for the arguments which have been used to document such particularistic claims as the RLDS church has been prone to make.