Revolution: The Story of the Early Church (30-47 A. D.)

Buy: Revolution: The Story of the Early Church (30-47 A. D.)
Paperback; Publisher: SeedSowers; (April 1987)
ISBN: 0-940232-02-2. 216 pages

Gene Edwards comments that he believes that "every minister in every Bible school and seminary should be required to create a first-century model [emphasis in original]" and he presents such a model in this book. He continues, according to the preface, with five more volumes. This practice, he contends, would prevent pastors from changing their views on a whim.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that Gene Edwards has created his model of the early church on a great deal of imagination. There's nothing wrong with imagination, but when we build theology on imagination, we are on shaky ground. What documentation will prevent someone else from imagining something different, or keep us from changing what we imagine-on a whim?

There are a number of good points regarding the early church, and the leading of the Holy Spirit in this book. It is especially important to note the many things that are assumed by modern Christians but are not mentioned in Acts or in other early Christian sources. Development of spiritual leadership through living as a Christian is important as well.

But there are a number of weaknesses in this "picture" as well. First, the picture is built entirely on the narrative of Acts. Now Acts may be a fine source, but it is a very limited document, and one cannot assume that just because something is not mentioned there, that it did not occur. Secondly, it is not the only document from which one can gather data that may be related to the early church. At the earliest, Acts is dated to the late 60s CE. All of Paul's letters date from before that time. In addition, we have the writings of the early church fathers. But Edwards presents us only with Acts plus imagination.

Let me illustrate my point. In chapter 11, pages 83-92, Edwards argues that Stephen was inactive between the time of his conversion (which he assumes was at Pentecost), and the time he was chosen as one of the seven (Acts 6). This time period he reckons at eight years in which he assumes that Stephen was engaged in certain church activities, but was not active in evangelism or any other such ministry. But this combines an argument from silence, with some unjustified assumptions about chronology.

There is no reason to assume that the events of chapter six of Acts occurred eight years after Pentecost. In addition, it is not stated that Stephen was converted at Pentecost. This would require us to assume both that the ministry of Stephen was extremely short, just because the narrative is short, and also to assume a strictly chronological narration, rather than one that is more topical. In other words, the events of Acts 6 may overlap those of chapter five and even chapter four.

Now Edwards is not necessarily wrong about what he suggests, but he is suggesting something which fills a silence of scripture. Is it necessarily wrong to do this? No, but if we then build doctrine on it, such as the suggestion that young men shouldn't be involved in ministry, or that new converts should be kept inactive, just living the life of the church, then such teaching should be based on other scripture, and not just an argument from silence.

Overall, I find this a disappointing summary of the early church. There are a number of pointed challenges to standard church practice, however, that deserve consideration.