Gene Edwards is a man who has done much to promote the idea of churches free of traditional systematized constraints and trappings that were generally foreign to the first century churches. He promotes meeting in homes rather than in religious buildings; the idea of free and equitable participation by all who gather rather than meetings focused on the ministry of one man, or that of only a few; leadership that is developed within the congregations rather than coming from seminaries; and many other things that the Lord intended for His assemblies to enjoy.
In his book, Beyond Radical,1 Edwards criticizes the systematized churches (a.k.a. “institutionalized” or “organized” churches) for such practices as: the weekly sermon; the church building; Bible schools and seminaries; pulpits and pews; liturgy; the pastorate; Sunday school; coming to church at 11:00 in the morning; choirs; funerals and funeral orations; para church organizations; the funny clothes many pastors wear; and other things. While one can make a good case for repenting of many of the institutions with which most Christians today are familiar, and while many who have left systematized churches would agree with Edwards’ assessment of the above items, there are some peculiar aspects about the ecclesiology of Gene Edwards that, if not recognized, may lead to the same sort of wounds and disillusionment that many have suffered at the hands of traditionally systematized churches. Additionally, Edwards seems to present a diluted gospel, and he promotes a few less symptomatic errors, as well.
In examining Edwards’ theology of the church I will refer primarily to three of his many books: Revolution: The Story of the Early Church2 (abrev.: REV); How to Meet Under the Headship of Jesus Christ3 (abrev.: HTM); and Rethinking Elders4 (abrev.: RTE). Other books may be referred to from time to time, but in these three the main body of Edwards’ doctrines regarding the church may be examined.
Gene Edwards would have readers of his books believe that he is strictly following the New Testament pattern . . . Let me rephrase that . . . He would have us believe that he is strictly following the first century pattern. Actually, however, he diverges from that pattern in a number of significant ways, as this review will demonstrate.
Edwards would also like his readers to believe that they are not as smart as he is, that they do not know the Bible as well as he does, and that they do not know church history as well as he does. He makes the highly questionable boast of having read nearly every book that has ever been written about the first century church; and, quite “amicably,” Edwards has been also been known to thunder, “Don’t cross swords with me, buster! I know the Bible better than you!” All of this is probably true, with respect to many believers (I have no doubt he knows the Bible and church history better than me). But what does that prove? The average Pharisee undoubtably knew the Old Testament better than the vast majority of the first century saints, and by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, what few Jewish leaders that escaped that calamity probably knew Christian history better than the average Christian did, too! Indeed, Vladimir Lenin memorized the entire New Testament before going on to become a political revolutionary and founding the Russian Communist Party; talk about “revolution”!
A self-styled “church planter,”5 Edwards blends in just enough spiritual truth into his ecclesiology to make it appealing to the unwary. At the same time, his novel doctrines and practices, his distorted narrative of history, and his tortured interpretations of the Scriptures are couched in terms or contexts that make them very attractive to anyone who is remotely sensitive to the vast chasm of difference between the many practices of what we call “church,” in our day, and what the saints of the New Testament period enjoyed. In other words, he tickles the ears of those who have begun to see the error of Constantinian6 church practices.
Edwards has been out of the traditional church system for 35 years, and has been involved in the house church movement ever since. That being said, however, I would posit that he has merely replaced the old system with one of his own devising; and some key elements closely resemble the very root of the system that he says he wants to see the assemblies of the saints get away from.
The year that saw Lynard Skynard’s Sweet Home Alabama and Terry Jack’s Seasons in the Sun become major hits, along with the resignation of President Nixon, was also the year the text of Edwards’ Revolution was first published. This book has excited the imagination of many who have become disappointed with mainstream Christianity, especially in the United States. In point of fact, Revolution sets the stage for Edwards’ ecclesiology. Indeed, the major elements of his theology of the church are contained therein, albeit much more subtly than in How to Meet and especially Rethinking Elders. Thus, it is with this book that we will begin to examine some of the errors of his theology of the church.
If there is one crucial doctrine in Edwards’ bag of beliefs about the church, it is this: “Apostleship and the church always go hand in hand” (REV, p. 21). In reading Revolution, How to Meet, and Rethinking Elders, one cannot escape the conclusion that the author means that living apostles in every age are (or should be) inextricably linked to the churches in exactly the same way the early churches of Europe and Asia were linked to the apostle Paul while he was alive. For Edwards, apostles today would have essentially the same authority over the churches that John, Peter, James, and Paul had over the churches during the New Testament period! Although Edwards would have his ardent followers believe that Jesus Christ is his sole topic and only interest, this doctrine of a modern apostolate is the fundamental and overriding doctrine of his theology of the church; it (not Christ) is, in fact, what defines his ecclesiology:
Today Christianity has wandered far afield from the early church. A restoration is needed. Certainly the first thing that needs to be restored in the church is the first thing the Lord ever gave the church: Apostles. Without the full restoration of this office, all other discussion, all other hopes, all other dreams and plans of seeing the church again as it ought to be are meaningless. — Revolution, p. 24
In making this assertion, the author fails to differentiate between the rank or order of apostles chosen by our Lord Himself, or who were publicly ordained by the Holy Spirit and had received the right hand of fellowship from the apostles chosen by the Lord Himself, and apostles which were merely sent out by the churches. Additionally, as we shall see, Edwards identifies as apostles men whom the Scriptures themselves never call apostles (which is peculiar, considering that he goes against tradition and refuses to term as “deacons” the Seven of Acts 6:1-6 on the basis that the New Testament itself never pointedly calls them deacons).
Second only to his doctrine of the continuation of ruling apostles is his understanding of what an apostle is. To get to this concept, Edwards asserts, “The purpose of an apostle is to build the church” (REV, p.23). This, in spite of the fact that the gospels reveal nothing about our Lord telling the Eleven to build the church when He commissioned them. Indeed, Jesus indicated that He would build His church (Matt. 16:18)! That Edwards actually defines apostles as “church planters” can be more clearly seen in How to Meet. There he refers to the Twelve apostles as “the twelve church planters” (p.49). Yet, we do not even know, for certain, that all of the apostles actually did any church planting. Paul, himself, never said anything about “planting churches” as being his calling (a fundamental aspect of which, is the baptism of converts); rather, the apostle to the Gentiles very clearly saw his mission primarily in terms of proclaiming the kingdom of Christ to the unconverted. Of the Twelve, the New Testament gives no indication that any but Peter were ever involved in raising churches. Indeed, before Cephas began to go afield, he, James and John had gained a reputation for being the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9). The only “authority” we have that all of the Twelve actually went on missionary journeys is from ancient “traditions” or legends, handed down from various questionable sources.
Not even the church in Jerusalem was planted by the apostles, for it was already 120 strong on the day of Pentecost. Although all of the Twelve undoubtedly were involved in the building up of the church in Jerusalem, in a very real sense that could be said of every saint who stayed in Jerusalem for any length of time (besides which, there is a difference between planting or starting, and edifying or building up). While there is a good probability that all the apostles did establish churches, per se, this still does not define the term. All of the apostles probably also possessed all of the gifts of the Spirit, but while these may be signs of their true apostleship, they do not define what an apostle is!
The fact is, the Greek word rendered apostle (apostellos) in our English versions of the Bible does not intrinsically indicate specifically what the apostle is to do. For the purposes of this discussion it will suffice to look at a fairly basic reference work on this matter. Vine's Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments7 says that the Greek word, apostellos, literally means “one sent forth.” According to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology8 the word was originally a naval term, and referred to the sending out (i.e., the commissioning) of ships and troops on the ruler’s business. Apparently, though, by New Testament times the term came to have a more generic usage, of one sent on a mission of any sort. Thus, an apostle is one who is commissioned to speak and/or act on behalf of another, and with the authority of the one who sent him.
The term apostle says nothing about “who” did the sending, nor about “what” the apostle was sent to accomplish. Indeed, Epaphroditus, whom Paul identifies as his “fellow worker and fellow soldier” (Philip. 2:25) but not as his “fellow apostle,” is also identified by Paul as one sent (i.e., as an apostle commissioned) by the Philippian church as their servant to care for Paul’s needs (the word in this text that is rendered “messenger,” in many English translations — e.g., the NASB and the NKJV — is apostellos in the Greek). So, while Paul was an apostle of Christ, Epaphroditus was an “apostle” of the Philippian church (i.e., their messenger to Paul). Thus, to equate all who are identified as “apostles” in the New Testament to be what the Twelve were, or what Paul and Barnabas were, is not even an extrapolation; it is an assumption, at best. And a poor one, at that. Likewise, it is illegitimate to identify as “apostles” men whom the New Testament does not actually call apostles on the mere basis that they were involved in establishing churches, simply because some men whom the New Testament does call apostles appear to also have been instrumental in raising up churches; for, on that basis, anyone who ate food or wore clothing could be called an apostles, for it is certain that all whom the Bible calls apostles did both of these, as well.
High on Edwards’ list of first principles is his claim that the churches of the New Testament period did not spend a whole lot of time studying the Bible. According to him, they basically just basked in the Lord’s presence, and in the experience of His church. The focus, according to Edwards, was Jesus — Not creeds, not the Word of God, not obedience to the Word of God, not the particulars of Jesus’ commandments (e.g., that we should pray, how we should pray, that we should be witnesses of His, that we should overcome sin, how we should understand the Old Testament Scriptures). This is seen in his thoughts on what the apostles taught the Pentecost converts at the temple on the Porch of Solomon:
Of course everyone knows what those men were doing up there. They were teaching the Scripture! Why, they were doing what every man of God does. They were getting men into the Word. Everyone knows that.Nope!
The apostles did not teach the Scripture.
“You're kidding!”
Nope!
Furthermore, it is unlikely that any believers in the first century ever sat around studying the Scripture! Certainly not the way men do today. — Revolution, pp. 45-46
Almost like the Pharisees, who would neither enter in, nor permit others to enter in, Edwards attempts to silence any argument to the contrary with the following salvo:
Undoubtedly you can find a verse somewhere to justify men standing before an audience teaching the Scripture. But in all the story of the first century church you will never once see such a thing as “Bible study” being practiced. Perhaps a verse of Scripture, taken out of context and taken out of its historical setting, can justify such a practice, but the whole story of the early church — if taken from start to finish — simply refuses to endorse such a practice! — Revolution, p.46
Of course, Edwards knows full well that the New Testament does endorse Bible teaching and Bible study. Perhaps “not the way men do today,” but then, according to Edwards, each church should be allowed its own cultural differences. Adoring fans of Edwards might be inclined to respond to me by saying, “That's your opinion.” And, indeed it is; however, as I will demonstrate, my opinion, not Edwards’, lines up with the truth.
Let's see, then, if we can find a verse of Scripture that proves Edwards is wrong about this. Hopefully it will be one that does not have to be taken out of its context or historical setting to prove the point. First, there are a number of passages in the Gospels where Jesus taught both His disciples and His adversaries the meaning of the Scriptures and how He interpreted them (Matt. 7:12; 11:9-13; 12:5 & 39-42; 13:14-15; 15:7-9; 19:3-8; 21:42; 22:29-32 & 37-40; 23:23; 26:52-56; Mark 7:6-13; Mark 14:49; Luke 4:16-27; 16:31; 18:31; 24:25-27, 32, & 44; John 6:45; 7:19-24 & 38; 8:17-18; 10:34-36; 13:18; 15:25; et al.).
Indeed, our Lord acknowledged that the Jews searched (i.e., examined) the Scriptures, yet His only criticism of them was that they did not understand what they were studying (John 5:39-40); He neither rebuked their focus on the Scriptures nor their notion that in them they would find eternal life, only that they would not come to Him whom those Scriptures proclaimed. Let the honest man study these texts, and then judge whether they are taken out of their context or historical setting.
Second, the writers of Gospels use the Old Testament Scriptures, constantly, to teach that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied therein (most often by way of allusion), thus illustrating that the Scriptures were an acceptable and common source of teaching for the nascent church, and showing the means by which those Scriptures were understood. That this is so is so readily apparent, to even the casual reader, that the thoughtful believer should not require references; nevertheless a few references are provided (Matt. 2:23; Luke 1:70; John 2:22; 19:24, 28, 36-37; 20:9; et al.). An informed study of the Book of Revelation will reveal that it is rife with allusions to the Old Testament. Let the one who does not despise truth examine these passages and see if I have misappropriated them from their context or historical setting.
Third, the teachers of the New Testament period, and the apostles themselves, made constant reference to the Scriptures in their teaching, giving interpretations and insisting that these writings must be fulfilled (Acts 1:15-16, 20; 2:16-21, 25-28, 34-35; 4:24-26; 7:48-50; 8:29-35; 13:40-41, 47; 15:15-18; 17:2; 18:24-26, 28; 28:25-27; Rom. 1:2; 3:4, 9-18; 4:3, 6-8; 8:36; 9:17, 25-34; 10:11, 18-21; 11:2-4, 8-10, 26-27, 34-35; 14:11; 15:4, 9-12, 21; 16:25-26; 1 Cor. 1:19; 2:9; 15:3-4; 2 Cor. 6:2, 16-18; 9:9; Gal. 3:8, 10, 22; 4:21-31; Eph. 4:8; 5:14; 1 Tim. 5:18; Heb. 1:5-13; 2:6-8, 12-13; 5:5-6; 7:17, 21; 18:8-12; 9:20; 10:5-7, 15-17, 36-38; 12:5-6; 13:5-6; Jas. 2:8, 23; 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; 2:6-10; 3:10-12; 2 Pet. 2:22; 3:16; et al.)
If the Scriptures were not a major focus of the apostles, just what does Edwards think was so almighty important about those “books and parchments” (2 Tim. 4:13) that Paul lugged around with him, anyway? Does anyone suppose that Paul liked to relax in the evening with a bit of Homer's Illiad, and other classic novels of his day? Let those who are centered on Christ be honest enough to search these references to see if I have used them out of their context or historical setting.
Fourth, the New Testament tells us, from the writings of the apostles, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written for us, for our instruction (Rom. 15:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; 2 Tim. 3:16). Paul tells us that we are to wield “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Eph. 6:17). Let the humble man take a close look at these Scriptures before he concludes that I have taken them out of their context and historical setting.
Fifth, the Bereans were commended as being “noble-minded” because, after hearing Paul’s Gospel, they optimistically had bible studies on a daily basis to verify that what Paul told them was in the Scriptures, with the result being that a large number of them believed Paul’s message (Acts 17:10-12). The commendation Luke gives them for their willingness to study the Bible to find out whether or not Paul was right is contrasted with the unwillingness of the Thessalonians to consider Paul’s message (Acts 17:1-9, qv.). Interestingly, even though converts were made in Thessalonica, these believers had to be exhorted by Paul to not have the attitude of their unbelieving fellow Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5:19-21). Let the noble-minded search the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so.
Sixth, the apostle Paul tells Timothy that, when he visits the churches, he is to “give attention to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Tim. 4:13) for the apparent purpose of exhorting and teaching the saints. Indeed, Paul tells him, “Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them . . .” (v. 16). It is clear from the context of these texts that Paul sees the exhortation in the Word of God and the teaching of the Scriptures as a mithridate to “deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (v. 1).
Seventh, in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul tells us to include as part of our armament against evil, the “sword of the Spirit,” which the apostle identifies as “the word of God” (6:17). In the Scriptures there is only one “thing” identified as “the word of God,” and that is what God has spoken, which is recorded in the Scriptures. Christ is identified as “the Word,” as He is the very expression of the Father; but Christ is not the sword of the Spirit, and He is never identified as “the Word of God,” — only as “the Word.” In Paul's theology it is faithfulness to the Scriptures by which the schemes of the devil are devil are brought to naught (Matt. 4:1-11). Let those who love the Lord examine these Scriptures and see that they are not taken out of context or historical setting.
I think, if you carefully examine all of the texts quoted, noting their context and historical setting, you will very quickly conclude that the New Testament really does endorse the idea of using the Scriptures to teach, of teaching from the Scriptures, of teaching what the Scriptures say and mean, and of teaching how to understand the Scriptures. Additionally, you will see that at least one group of believers participated in what we today would call a “Bible study,” as a means to test the spirits and of examining Paul’s proclamation to them. Thus, it will be apparent that the safest course for us as Christians, when confronted with doctrines (i.e., teachings) that are foreign to our way of thinking, is to examine everything carefully in light of the Scriptures knowing that any other Gospel is not of God — knowing that the church, as it is presented in the New Testament (with its focus on the Scriptures, as well as the doctrines and traditions of the apostles, and all), is part of that Gospel.
Besides being critical of the emphasis that good Christians place on knowing the Bible, Edwards also criticizes the notion that we must obey the Bible, too! Now, obviously, most Christians in the systematized churches would agree with Edwards when it comes to ecclesiology! And, indeed, it is somewhat amusing to see Edwards attempt to prove his ecclesiology on the basis of what we read in the New Testament, while at the same time suggesting that other things need not be looked upon as demanding obedience. For those who may be skeptical about my assertion that Edwards denigrates the idea of obeying the Scriptures, listen to what he says in a 1998 publication:
Let's say there is a group of people meeting in a home. They are very close knit. Suddenly comes the devastating news that there has been/is immorality in the group.You go to the New Testament and start trying to find teaching on “church discipline.”
This is the way it goes.
“It says here . . . so let’s do this.” (We’ve got to obey the word!) — P. 135
We are so conditioned to approach scripture this way that it is virtually impossible to break through this mindset. — Rethinking Elders, a galley proof copy, p. 135
When Edwards says, in parentheses, “We’ve got to obey the word!” one can almost hear the echo of “Lions, and bears, and tigers, and snakes; Oh my!” in the background. It is quite a snide attitude he takes toward obeying the Scriptures; and yet, Jesus took quite a different view in the matter (Matt. 15:3-7). Here, from the same book, is another example of Edwards’ denigration of obedience to the Scriptures:
“We’ve just started a Bible class. it's wonderful. We’re really into the Word. Come join us.”About a year or two later, the teaching of the church is begun . . .
“Let's have church! It’s biblical.”
. . . Soon things get serious. “Obedience to the word of God” became a fetish to the group. Why the word “fetish?” Because such groups are far more centered on knowledge about Scripture than in experiencing Christ. — p. 137
No doubt the attitude Edwards expresses in the two quotes above is the same spirit that had pervaded the Corinthian church, thus allowing it to tolerate the presence of a man who was taking liberties with his own father's wife! But Paul's attitude was closer to that of the groups described in the two quotes just given. He seems angry that the Corinthians were tolerating the situation (1 Cor. 5:1-13). Paul wasn't even there, and he said he had “already judged him who so committed this”(v. 3). Now Paul's focus certainly was Jesus, but not to the extent that he ignored everything else. The apostle insisted that his readers “not . . . associate with [sexually] immoral people” in the church! (vv. 9-11)
Where was Edwards when the Pharisees were being confronted by Christ for their failure to keep the Scriptures? One can just imagine them trying to explain to Jesus that the reason they did not permit a man to honor his father and mother if he had pledged all of his surplus to God, is that it is much more important to experience God than to obey His Word. Indeed, the Scriptures give us plenty of reason to fear that, if we do not obey the Word of God, we shall certainly “experience” Him.
Or, again, where was Edwards when the Lord ascended into heaven? Can you imagine the disciples, when the Lord told them to stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit had come upon them in power, arguing among themselves that this really wasn't necessary — that the only really important thing was to experience Jesus? One of them would argue, “But you know what the Lord said; He said that we should . . .“ and one of the others would interject, “Yes, I know what He said better than you do, buster; but I'd rather experience Him than know any of the stuff He said!”
It is certainly true that some (perhaps most, even) who are intent on obeying the Scriptures are more centered on mere knowledge than on knowing Christ. Likewise, those who fill their heads with the knowledge of first century life and thus extrapolate extra-biblical notions of church life may be puffed up with learning. But it is absolutely wicked to condemn concern respecting obedience to the Bible based on the wrongful application of others. Jesus makes it plain that those who work in His name while disobeying His commands will be denied by Him:
Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare unto them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” Matthew 7:21-23
Edwards has made six fallacious assumptions in his statements and by concluding that those who go to the Bible to determine what God would have them do in a matter of church discipline are usually more concerned about knowledge than experiencing Christ:
1. He has mistakenly assumed that one may be centered in Christ while being willfully ignorant of what God has said about His Son in the Scriptures.2. He has falsely assumed that those who concern themselves with being obedient to the Word of God are not motivated by being centered in Christ. One wonders how Edwards feels about Jesus’ interaction with Satan during His fast in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11). His entire defense was that which is written in the Scriptures. One would think that if Jesus' experience of the Divine demanded His focus on the Word of God, that His followers' experience of Him would demand the same (John 17:11, 21, 23). However, I suppose that using the Scriptures the way Jesus did could be a two-edged sword!
3. He has wrongly assumed that one may be centered in Christ and not be concerned about obeying the Bible (Matt. 7:21).
4. He has foolishly assumed that living the Christian life means flawless obedience to the demands of the Scriptures (Ro 7:14-25).
5. He has naively assumed that the exercise of church discipline cannot be executed in Christian love by the church and without the presence and help of a so-called “church planter” or some other “outsider” (1 Cor. 5:7).
6. He has fatuously assumed that attention to the Scriptures is contrary to truly experiencing Christ (Acts 17:11).
Indeed, with respect to this last point, Edwards seems especially bent on keeping his followers away from the Scriptures:
The idea that Bible study is an absolute necessity to the Christian Life is so entrenched in the mentality of the twentieth-century believer that to question it is almost an invitation to be burned at the stake. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the early church got by very well without engaging in Bible study . . . twentieth century style. This fact is indisputable! — Revolution, footnote on p.46
The inclusion of such qualifiers (e.g., “absolute,” and “twentieth century style”), in this and other statements degrading attention to the Bible, only serves to amplify Edwards' anti-Scripture agenda. Clearly, for him, adherence to his spin on the “norm” of the first century takes precedence over the demands of the New Testament. But, we do have to take his word on how things were done in those days, for he will assure us, he knows more than we do about it. Indeed, lest you forget it, he has read nearly every book ever printed on the subject, and only his keen, “apostolic” intellect is capable of sifting the wheat from the chaff of first century historical scholarship. This can be seen in Edwards’ take on what the apostles taught the 3,000 converts made in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost:
To expect those men [i.e., the apostles] standing there in Solomon’s Porch to be teaching the Hebrew scrolls would be like expecting the first man to land on Mars to return to earth and, for his first press conference, to give a lecture on rocket fuel!The idea of teaching Scripture never entered their minds!
They didn’t . . . give lectures on the Scroll of Ezekiel or on Eyeballs and Bears Tails in the Scroll of Daniel. What is more, the saints gathered in Solomon’s porch would have thrown olive pits at the apostles if they had tried. — Revolution, p. 47
Of course, there is not a shred of proof, historical or scriptural, for any of these claims; but, since one cannot say with certainty specifically what the apostles actually said at the Porch of Solomon, Edwards feels confident in making bold and baseless claims about it.
First of all, if new converts to Christianity in our own day (whether in sophisticated and well educated societies, or in the most primitive and basic of cultures) will tolerate the shenanigans of ignorant, naive, and even corrupt missionaries and evangelists, then what is there to say that this would not be equally true of new converts two millennia ago? (An olive pit at you Edwards, for making such ridiculous assertions!)
Secondly, as I have already demonstrated through many New Testament passages, the apostles did teach the Scriptures, even if it cannot be shown that they ever got into the finer points of Daniel. In fact, it is Edwards who is attempting to foist “an image on those men.” The image he seems to be imposing on the apostles and the 3,000 is one of mind-numbed robots standing agog, in some sort of orgasmic, fuzzy-wuzzy trance, before the Zen-like apostles who are spouting feel-good pious platitudes about Jesus: “You are not created, for you are all bits of Him, existing before He ever began to create.” The image I get is one of toga garbed and Birkenstock clad new-age gurus spewing forth expectationless gobbledygook to a multitude of mindless people standing before them, craning their necks skyward, with eyes glazed, and nauseatingly silly grins perpetually plastered across their visages.
Edwards says that what the apostles talked about was “Jesus Christ! Night and day. That’s all you got out of them: Jesus Christ” (REV, p. 48). But he never explains what he means by this. Did they just repeat his name, over and over, like some sort of Christian mantra? Perhaps to the tune of Eidelweis? It sounds lofty, of course, to say that all you got out of the apostles was Jesus Christ; but for Edwards, the Scriptures — even those written by the apostles — provide less than Jesus Christ. Go figure. Interestingly, Jesus Himself said that the Old Testament testified of Him (John 5:39). However, the truly peculiar thing about this lofty sentiment is that it in no way characterizes Edwards’ own own career. You do not just get Jesus Christ out of Edwards, and you never get all of Jesus Christ from him (certainly not the parts where He puts obligations to obey His commandments on all who would know Him, certainly not the parts where He endorses the Scriptures as the sure Word of God). No, there are many other things that compete with Jesus Christ for Edwards’ attention. The predominant things that Edwards enjoys talking and writing about is apostles, the early church, what’s wrong with the systematized churches of the Eastern, Western and Protestant traditions, how men such a Luther, Calvin, and Darby ruined the churches, and how messed up devoted Christians are because we pay so much attention to the Scriptures.
For Edwards to compare the instruction of new converts in the Scriptures with an astronaut lecturing on rocket fuel at his first press conference back from a pioneering trip to Mars is absurd. As the saying goes, it’s like comparing apples to oranges (really, it’s like comparing instructions to volatile chemicals). A fairer comparison would be of a company representative who has just returned from a recent visit to the leader(s) of his country’s government, and explaining to his fellow workers certain new laws effecting his company; a thing which would not be at all surprising.
Furthermore, Edwards’assertion that the apostles didn’t talk about the Scriptures shows gross ignorance of the meaning of the Greek word rendered “church” in our English translations of the Bible. The Greek word, as many believers know, is ekklesia. “Popular theology” tells us that this word means “the people,” or “an assembly.” What people usually do not realize is that the word had a more specific meaning in New Testament times. It literally meant “the regularly summoned (full) citizens of the kingdom, gathered to hear the word of the king and to make decisions (based on the king's words) pertaining to life in the kingdom.” As a good friend of mine, Tim Wilson, wrote in an essay on the Christian ekklesia, the word ekklesia “means, contextually and in accordance with the native meaning of the word, ‘the purposeful gathering of the citizens to go about policy making (binding and loosening) within the kingdom of the now revealed Messiah.’” In this context, it would be odd if the apostles did not place a major emphasis on the Scriptures, for this body of literature is the word of our King. Edwards’ assumption that the apostles just talked about Jesus, that they didn’t teach creeds (creedal statements can be found in the New Testament), the Scriptures, doctrines (just another word for things taught), or theology (just another word for the knowledge of God), goes back to what he thinks an apostle is. But the ambassador or emissary of a ruler was rarely (if ever) sent out for the mere purpose of cultivating gushy feelings toward the ruler; the primary purpose was usually to further the authority of the one who sent him, to carry out and establish the policies of the ruler. To whit, the apostle might establish courts, forums, or caucuses (i.e., ekklesias) to advance and maintain this cause; thus, the church is primarily concerned with maintaining and advancing the policies of her King among His people!
Footnotes:
1. No publisher indicated, no
date
indicated.
3. Message Ministry, Sargent, GA, 1993
4. An undated galley proof copy.
7. Edited by F.F. Bruce, Fleming H. Revell Company; 1981 (p. 63).
8. Edited by Colin Brown, Zondervan Publishing House; 1975 (vol. 1, p. 127).
Elsewhere in the Berean Inquirer:
Other Articles on Gene Edwards
Table of
Contents
(Home)
| Other Essays About Gene Edwards | Table of Contents (Home) | Useful Links | Mailing List: Free Enrollment | E-Mail Me |
