Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind.
Conclusion, p. 146-150

(Detailed summary)

In this book, different models of the Church in the New Testament have been presented, because none of the biblical authors cited intended to give a comprehensive picture of what the Church should be. We examined a number of New Testament books in search of an explicit or implicit answer to a specific question: what were Christians in the sub-apostolic period (the last third of the first century) taught in order to enable their respective churches to survive the death of the authoritative apostolic generation? These works contained no evidence that a coherent or uniform ecclesiology had emerged. On the contrary, the writings addressed to different communities in the New Testament emphasized very diverse aspects. Although each emphasis could be effective in particular circumstances, each had glaring shortcomings that would be dangerous if that emphasis were isolated and considered sufficient for all times. Taken collectively, however, these emphases constitute a remarkable lesson in early idealism regarding Christian community life.

Living in the churches of the 20th century, what can we conclude from such a study? There are, of course, Christians who still reject the existence of diversity in the New Testament. Some do so on the basis of a rigid theory of divine inspiration that disregards the human situation of the New Testament writings and insists that their message must be uniform, because only the voice of God can be heard. Others reject diversity in the New Testament because they project onto the first century an ideal situation in which Jesus planned the Church, the apostles were unanimous in carrying out his directives, and the only ones who differed were the troublemakers condemned by the New Testament authors. None of these ultra-conservative objections to New Testament diversity are defensible in light of the evidence. To go further: religiously speaking, neither is a particularly good solution, and in fact, both have hindered the development of a mature Christian position capable of recognizing nuances.

On the other hand, some biblical scholars turn the perceptible diversity of the NT into dialectical struggles and contradictory positions. Yet no one can demonstrate that any of the churches studied broke communion with another. It is also unlikely that the NT churches of this sub-apostolic period had no concern for Christian fellowship and were autonomous conventicles following their own path. Paul is eloquent about the importance of fellowship, and in the Pauline heritage, concern for Christian unity is visible in Luke/Acts and Ephesians. Peter is a pivotal figure in the New Testament, and the concept of the people of God in 1 Peter requires a collective understanding of Christianity. Despite all its individualism, the fourth gospel knows of other sheep that are not of this flock and Jesus' desire that they be one. Matthew has a conception of the Church and broadens the horizons of Christianity to all nations. Most of the New Testament was written before the major breaks in communion detectable in the 2nd century, and so the diversity of the New Testament cannot be used to justify the current Christian division.

If we can neither ignore the ecclesiological differences in the New Testament nor use them to justify the current status quo, how are these differences useful to us? In short, they strengthen and challenge us.

1. First, they strengthen us. Most of us belong to a particular Christian church—Presbyterian, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal, etc.—because we were born into families that were members of that church. However, as we grew up, if we remained faithful to the church of our birth, it was because we found characteristics there that brought us closer to Christ and the love of God. Those who left one church to join another did so, at least in part, to find what they felt was a better context for living out the gospel. Thus, membership in a church has become a matter of conviction. A study of the different orientations of the New Testament churches can illustrate the strengths we admire in our own church and increase our appreciation of how that church has remained faithful to its biblical heritage.

2. However, using the New Testament to strengthen people's appreciation for their own church is hardly new in the Christian world. In a divided Christianity, we have a long history of using Scripture to prove that we are right, whether as churches or as individuals. The greatest contribution of modern New Testament studies may therefore be to highlight the ways in which Scripture can challenge us constructively. Recognizing the ecclesiological diversity of the New Testament makes it much more difficult for any church to claim that it is absolutely faithful to Scripture. We are faithful, but in our own specific way; and both ecumenism and biblical studies should make us aware that there are other ways of being faithful that we do not do justice to. It is a strength for a church to preserve the emphasis on solid doctrinal authority in the Pastoral Epistles; but such a church may then need to question the role that John attributes to the Paraclete-Spirit as a teacher dwelling in every Christian. Small churches that combine Johannine imagery and Pauline charisms may need to question the meaning of historical continuity from Acts to the “Catholic Church” of the second century and ask how their highly individualistic position does justice to this. The governance of each church must be challenged by the voice of Jesus in Matthew 18.

En bref, une étude franche des ecclésiologies du NT devrait convaincre chaque communauté chrétienne qu'elle néglige une partie du témoignage du NT. Il ne s’agit pas d’accorder la même importance à chaque témoignage du NT, car nos histoires respectives nous ont orientés vers des aspects différents dans notre évaluation des Écritures. Mais si les Églises ont accepté le canon de la Bible, elles ne peuvent pas permettre à leurs préférences de faire taire une voix biblique. Dans un christianisme où existe la division, au lieu de lire la Bible pour nous assurer que nous avons raison, nous ferions mieux de la lire pour découvrir où nous n'avons pas écouté. En tant que chrétiens de différentes Églises, si nous essayons d'écouter les voix auparavant étouffées, notre vision de l'Église s'élargira et nous nous rapprocherons d'une vision commune. La Bible ferait alors pour nous ce que Jésus a fait à son époque, à savoir convaincre ceux qui ont des oreilles pour entendre que tout n'est pas parfait, car Dieu leur demande plus qu'ils ne le pensaient. Cela pourrait être la metanoia ou la transformation qui préparerait l'Église au royaume.