The Golden age of the church never existed

Discouragement with the state of the modern church and an overly optimistic view of church history has caused some Christians to believe that the church once had a golden age. It’s often suggested that the early church represented this age. We must correct our drifting and return to the values and practices of the early church, the argument goes. 

They want the church to be more “Apostolic.” They want it to be more communal (see Acts 2:44). They want it to be free of denominationalism and separation. The natural consequence of this well-intended attitude is a disparagement of the modern church.

To identify the early church as the golden era and to yearn for its exact replication is misguided and dangerous.

In many ways, these critics are right—there are many things that the church needs to heed from our earliest forefathers. The early Christians faithfully employed the divinely ordained means of grace (v. 42), they shared the gospel with deep fervour, they exhibited tremendous generosity, and so forth. 

We would do well to reform our piety and practice to better conform to Scripture, which reform perhaps was modelled better by previous generations of Christians. This is the heart of the Reformation principle semper reformanda—the church is continually reforming itself to the teaching of Scripture. But to identify the early church (or any other age) as the golden era and to yearn for its exact replication is misguided and dangerous for several reasons.

The idea of a golden age discounts the shifts in redemptive history.

I understand the frustration in reading the book of Acts and concluding that the Holy Spirit was more visible in His work in the early church. But the Spirit that came upon those at Pentecost is the same Spirit that indwells us. What’s the difference, then? 

The primary difference is about methodology, not source. The extraordinary, foundational Apostolic office—with all its accompanying gifts—eventually gave way to a more permanent church structure featuring the simple offices of elders and deacons. 

This doesn’t make the church any less “spiritual”; rather, it accounts for the intentional shift from the Apostolic foundation-laying stage to the more permanent ordinary age. If we are to lament anything in the modern church, it should be our susceptibility to neglect those ordinary means of building the church in search of something more extraordinary. 

In reality, the early church devoted itself to the same things that we should be devoting ourselves to—the sacraments, the Word of God, fellowship, and prayer (Acts 2:42). The Spirit who made the ascended Christ present to them in and through those means is the same Spirit who does so for us today. Grasping for the gifts of the past implies a distrust in the redemptive plan of Christ.

The idea of a golden age venerates the early church.

Again, it would be unfair to discount the exemplary characteristics of the early church. It may be equally unfair to overlook their failures while persistently recounting our failures. 

• In many ways, the early church looked just like us. The first Christians dealt with moral failure—sexual immorality (Romans and Corinthians), greed and dishonest gain (Jude), disunity and quarrels (Philippians and James), and laziness (Thessalonians). 
• There were doctrinal failures—legalism (Galatians and Hebrews), false spirituality (Colossians), and pretentious, heartless religion (Ephesians; see Rev. 2:1–7). 
• There were wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Col. 2:8; 2 Peter 2:1–3) and church officers falling (3 John). 
• Paul had to rebuke his fellow Apostle Peter for abysmal conduct about prejudices (Gal. 2:11–14). 
• Ecclesiastically, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9). 
• Moral and doctrinal failures will permeate the air until Christ’s second advent. If perfection is the criterion for an age to be classified as golden, the early church didn’t qualify any more than ours does.

The idea of a golden age misconstrues the headship of Christ.

We need to be careful that we don’t deny that Christians in certain eras got certain things more right than Christians in other eras. We need even more care to ensure we don’t unintentionally usurp Christ’s authority as sovereign head of the church. As Head, Christ will complete the work that He has begun (Phil. 1:6). To that end, He prayed to the Father to “keep them in your name, which you have given me” (John 17:11). 

Those whom the Father has given Christ will be protected—because Jesus’ prayers are efficacious. What about those professing evangelicals who are dropping like flies by rejecting orthodoxy? Such compromises are discouraging, but, as many have noted, the stark contrast between true disciples and false disciples is becoming well-defined. 

The winnowing fork is separating the wheat from the chaff before our eyes (Matt. 3:12). Those who fall away prove themselves to be those for whom Jesus hasn’t prayed (John 17:9) and those who never truly belonged with us (1 John 2:19). But these situations aren’t unique to the modern church. The visible church has always been a mix of true and false believers. 

For the life of the church between the first and second advents of Christ, there have always been Judases among Peters. The final separation won’t happen until the consummation of the kingdom. That will be the true golden age—the age when the church triumphant will be made up of only those for whom Jesus prayed and the Great Commission will have ceased (Jer. 31:34). This is the eschatological path the church is on.

CONCLUSION

Comparing the modern church against the early church is like comparing Bill Russell with Michael Jordan. Depending on your perspective, such evaluation either romanticizes what was and disregards what is, or it romanticizes what is and disregards what was. 

Seeking the peace and purity of the church should involve a healthy evaluation of church history, but it should never romanticize an era at the expense of denigrating the modern church. We only need to reorient our doctrine and practice according to a particular church era since they reflect Scripture. We study church history both to know what to do and to know what not to do.

This presupposes there is no golden age of the church, only multiple eras of the church during which the affection of Christ rested on her even in all her mess. On the other hand, the golden age of the church is yet to come. 

Indeed, Christ’s bride doesn’t look like she should, but it’s equally true that she will look exactly the way she should at the wedding of the Lamb. This much He has promised. Therefore, we should be patient with Christ’s bride because we know that she will make it to that final day. Only then will she exchange her rags for the unblemished wedding dress her Husband has prepared for her (Rev. 19:8). That will be golden.

 

 Aaron L. Garriott