Few claims capture the confidence of Churches of Christ like the phrase “we are the first-century church.” It’s meant to express a commitment to biblical authority, apostolic teaching, and continuity with the church described in the New Testament. The intent is to reject denominational innovation and restore the simple, Spirit-led community that Christ established through His apostles.
This conviction lies at the heart of the American Restoration Movement. The goal was not innovation, but recovering what existed in the New Testament. That original vision was rooted in humility, not arrogance. But over time, the claim of being the “first-century church” has shifted from a goal to a self-description.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
By virtue of our particular practices, we imply that our one group has perfectly restored what every other group has lost. The first-century church is certainly worth learning from, but claiming to be that church may say more about our assumptions and pride than our faithfulness.
Today, we’ll examine the origins of this claim, what it affirms when used rightly, how it can drift into error, and how we can reclaim the Restoration vision without overstating our place in it.
Where the Saying Comes From
In his 1809 Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell insisted, “the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.” Alexander Campbell echoed the same vision in his 1839 work The Christian System, writing, “We speak of things as they are written in the book of God, and as they were exhibited in the apostolic church.”
This mindset led many within the movement to conclude that if a church aligned itself with the teachings and practices of the New Testament, it was not merely like the first-century church but actually was the first-century church, not by being present in a particular time or culture but in doctrine, identity, and spiritual continuity.
That conclusion may sound bold, but it was rooted in sincere confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture and the reproducibility of the gospel. In many respects, this conviction still carries weight. The church of Christ belongs to Christ Himself and transcends time and space.
What the Claim Gets Right
At its core, the desire to be the first-century church reflects a profound commitment to biblical authority, apostolic teaching, and continuity with the gospel as it was first preached. This instinct is one of the most admirable features of the Restoration Movement.
The New Testament presents a clear and compelling picture of the church as it emerged under the apostles’ leadership and the Holy Spirit’s direction. Acts 2:42 describes the early church as “devoted to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” This was more than a loose spiritual association. It was a distinct, Spirit-formed community bound together by shared doctrine, worship, mission, and lives.
To say “we are the first-century church,” when used rightly, is an attempt to express that same commitment:
* To teach what the apostles taught.
* To worship as they worshiped.
* To organize the church as they organized it.
* To obey the same gospel that was preached on Pentecost.
* To submit to the authority of Christ through the Word, without adding human innovations or traditions.
This pursuit is especially important in our current era, as many churches have drifted into entertainment-focused worship models, doctrinal vagueness, or theological pragmatism. Holding up the apostolic church as a model is a necessary corrective in an age that often treats Scripture as optional.
Even philosophically, the instinct is sound. The Reformational principle ecclesia semper reformanda est—“the church must always be reformed according to the Word of God”—is consistent with the Restoration plea. As the church, we should always be looking to examine ourselves and be ready to reform as needed to align with the pattern set by the New Testament church.
When the slogan “we are the first-century church” expresses a commitment to these values, it can help keep the church grounded in truth, united in mission, and focused on Christ. However, problems arise when the phrase moves from aspiration to assertion, from seeking faithfulness to claiming exclusive ownership of it.
Where the Claim Goes Wrong
While the desire to model ourselves after the New Testament church is admirable, the shift from saying “we are striving to be the first-century church” to declaring “we are the first-century church” introduces several problems in our mindset and theology.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Romanticizing the Past
To say “we are the first-century church” can easily imply that we’ve already arrived, that nothing further needs to be examined, corrected, or reformed. This mindset resists reflection, discourages humility, and assumes the task of restoration is complete rather than ongoing. The truth is, no modern church perfectly replicates the first-century church. Cultural, linguistic, and historical differences make that impossible.
Ironically, this mindset also heavily romanticizes the first-century church. The kind of finality the claim suggests is entirely foreign to what we know about them. Paul wrote letters to rebuke, correct, and instruct churches wrestling with division, false teaching, moral failure, and cultural confusion.
Corinth was deeply fractured and ethically compromised. Galatia was legalistic and teetering on heresy. Ephesus struggled with false teachers. Even Jerusalem struggled with ethnocentric tendencies. The New Testament churches were not perfect models to be copied; they were real congregations with real flaws.
When we speak of the early church as if it represents a golden age of doctrinal purity and ideal practice, we romanticize what was actually a fragile but growing community of believers. Their faithfulness was not in their doctrinal perfection but in their dependence on Christ, submission to apostolic authority, and perseverance in the gospel. To imitate the first-century church should be to pursue the same faith and transformation they sought, not an attempt to claim a sense of functional superiority.
Description as Prescription
Much of what we know about the early church comes from the book of Acts and the epistles. These inspired texts contain both normative teaching and contextual description.
For example, Acts records churches meeting in homes, sharing possessions, casting lots, and continuing in temple worship. At the same time, Paul speaks of apostles, prophets, tongues, and miraculous gifts.
To assert that we are “the first-century church” can lead to selectively elevating some practices as permanent while dismissing others as cultural or temporary, often based on tradition rather than clear biblical reasoning. Restoration must distinguish between eternal principles and historical expressions. We imitate their faith and doctrine, not necessarily their cultural forms.
Encouraging Sectarianism
This is perhaps the most serious danger. When the phrase becomes a marker of identity, implying that we are the faithful church and others are not, it promotes the very sectarianism the early Restoration leaders opposed. This thinking subtly but dangerously moves from doctrinal conviction to spiritual exclusiveness. It risks drawing the circle of fellowship so narrowly that even faithful followers of Christ who disagree on secondary matters are viewed with suspicion or outright dismissal.
Let me be clear: the gospel must never be compromised. The church’s identity cannot be separated from the apostolic teaching about Christ, the call to repentance and baptism, and the pattern of faith and obedience revealed in Scripture. That is not negotiable.
I am not suggesting we should abandon biblical doctrine to embrace ecumenical partnerships with Catholicism, which has corrupted the gospel with tradition, or with much of modern Evangelicalism, which often preaches a shallow, experience-driven, or faith-alone message detached from biblical obedience.
The problem is not that we separate from false gospels. The problem is that we often separate from fellow believers who follow Christ faithfully but may differ from us on matters not central to salvation. Churches divide over things that are not the gospel and denounce and disfellowship other congregations over who is invited to speak or having a pot of coffee ready for Bible study (yes, that has happened).
If we are truly seeking to be the first-century church, we must reflect the spirit of the apostles who were willing to draw firm lines around the gospel, but who also called the church to be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3).
Always Reforming
If the goal of the Restoration Movement was to return to the church as Christ established it, then we must remember that restoration is not a static achievement. It’s a posture of continual submission to Christ’s authority and the apostles’ teaching. Saying “we are the first-century church” only has meaning if we are willing to let Scripture reshape us wherever we’ve settled into assumption, tradition, or pride.
The claim that we are the first-century church may have begun as a way to express our alignment with the New Testament pattern, but it too easily becomes a way of closing ourselves off from serious reflection. We cannot afford to allow confidence to become complacency.
We must hold fast to the gospel of Jesus Christ and teach what the apostles taught. But we must also acknowledge that our understanding, like that of every generation, is partial and needs constant renewal.
The first-century church was not perfect, but it was faithful. Not because it had everything figured out, but because it belonged to Christ and was being formed by His Word. Our goal must be not to simply claim that we are the first-century church, but to continue becoming the true church of Christ.
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
