I am a Baptist missionary. Baptists have long held, to some extent, Christian Restorationist inclinations. This is also known as Christian Primitivism. This assumes that the “ideal church” or “perfect church” existed shortly after Pentecost, and slowly there was a degradation over time into the mess we are in now. A different variation on this is tied to the Remnant theory. With this, there is still the belief that the ideal church existed shortly after Pentecost, and then there was degradation and disunity— but, a small remnant of faithful “good” communities of faith remained.

The Trail of Blood theory of Baptist origins is part of this Remnant theory. With this perspective, the Baptist church has always existed all the way back to the church of Jerusalem which was in description, if not in name, “Baptist.” Even those who do not accept this theory (and I would like to think that most Baptists don’t believe this self-serving rejection of church history) would still often see themselves as Baptists trying to recapture the essence of the original New Testament church.

Of course, Baptists are not alone in this. Pentecostals and Charismatics often embrace both Restorationist and Remnant theologies. The Church of Christ (Campbellites) has had these perspectives very explicitly held. Even groups whose beliefs appear to be far outside of historic Christian fold (Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons for example) embrace a form of Restorationist theology. Mormons in their more official name (“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”) explicitly reference a Restorationist perspective. In their view— the early church was perfect and “Mormon” but quickly fell into apostasy, and finally in these “latter days” has it been restored.

The Remnant theory is exactly that— a theory. While there were groups that had Baptist elements going back for many centuries before it became a movement, there is no “trail of blood” to point to. That is fine. The body of Christ is bigger than any single faith tradition. I know Pentecostals point back to groups in history that express their worship with ecstatic outbursts. The variety of these, however, should make it clear that ecstatic behaviors in worship are part of the human experience regardless of religion or tradition.

BUT THIS IS NOT MY MAIN TAKE HERE. I want to ask the question, “Was the church EVER ideal. Was the church EVER perfect?”

I would argue the answer is NO. Many point to Acts 4 as describing this idyllic state:

³² Now the entire group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. ³³ With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. ³⁴ For there was not a needy person among them because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of what was sold, ³⁵ and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed to each person as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

But a few things need to be considered in this matter. First is the timing. The primitive church is thought to have begun somewhere around AD 30 (some prefer AD 33… but anyway, near these times). The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is believed to have occurred around AD 48-50. Let’s take the largest gap. Suppose the church (with Pentecost) formed in AD 30 and the Jerusalem Council occurred in AD 50. That is 20 years. What linear things have to have happened in those 20 years?

• The scattering of the members of the church of Jerusalem due to persecution.
• The missionary ministry into Samaria and Judea
• The opening of the faith to Gentiles
• The call of Paul
• The formation of the Church at Antioch.
• The ministry of Barnabas and Paul in Antioch
• The first missionary journey of Barnabas and Paul

That is quite bit of things happening in those 20 years. The idyllic period in Acts 4 appears to have happened before all of those things since there was no mention of scattering of the Jerusalem church until later. Therefore, Acts 4 happened along with Acts chapters 1-7 in a period that was perhaps 3-5 years in duration. Since, chapters 5-7 express a lot of fear, jealousy, conflict, and more, if one seeks to see the first 7 chapters in strictly chronological terms, chapters 1-4 happened in even a more narrow time period. Perhaps 1-3 years. I would suggest that that is too short of a period of time to identify as a “norm” for mature churches.

Second, there is no real reason to think that the first 7 chapters of Acts must be seen as fully chronological. The early chapters of Acts already show persecution of the church going on. The martyrdom of Stephen and the scattering of the church are part of that thread that goes back to the beginning. The end of chapter 4 shows Joseph (Barnabas) giving everything to the church, with the beginning of chapter 5 having the story of Ananias and Sapphira. We may be tempted to see these as happening at distinctly different times. However, the chapter break is artificial, and the link between the stories is a conjunction that does not imply a passage of time. The story of Barnabas happened AND the story of Ananias and Sapphira happened. It may well be that Luke is telling of the early church thematically rather than chronologically.

In other words, in the first few chapters… there are problems but then with growth and seeming victory. However, Luke then immediately pivots to share the other side— there is dishonestly, leadership problems, fear among the brethren, jealousy, violent opposition, and eventually the scattering. But with the scattering we actually see good things happening— the spread of the gospel, the good news that Christ’s gospel is for Samaria, Africa, and the Gentiles. It is as if Luke is warning us not to idealize things. When things are doing great… there are problems. When there are problems, things are doing great.

Ripping Acts 4:32-35 out of its context and held up as some sort of example of the perfect church does not seem to match up with the story that Luke is attempting to tell.

Third, the church is made up of people. And people are (attempting to insult no one in particular) pretty awful much of the time. If the church was made up of people (and it was, and is) then its perfection is only to be understood as existing with deep and evident flaws. (I might point you to my article: Better than New: Christian Perfection as Informed by Wabi Sabi.)

I would suggest two major conclusions:

#1. There was never a perfect church. Or… perhaps… to be more generous— the “perfect” church of AD 34 was a deeply flawed church.

#2. Related to this… our search for creating a perfect church today should be understood as coexisting with deep and sytemic flaws.

#3. Any church in 2024 that comes close to being “perfect” can only be so in the context of 2024. We don’t need to restore the church of AD 34, but create the church of AD 2024.