What about First Principles?

What about First Principles?
Those of us in the International Churches of Christ are familiar with the "First Principles" study series. It is a collection of studies that has helped many people come to faith in Christ. And for those it has helped, I say "great." There are many aspects of the series that are good and useful.

However, as I have grown in my own faith and understanding, I have found First Principles inadequate and unable to stand up to critical thought and exegesis in a number of areas, the most significant of which I shall present here.

Selective and Reactionary Nature
First Principles suffers from the same problems as any catechism. Instead of proclaiming a simple gospel, it focuses on particular additional issues. The items included in it tend to be topics that other religious groups may neglect. Conversely, the things omitted from it tend to be things that other religious groups may emphasize. By definition, this is reactionary. Indeed, First Principles was deliberately created to be reactionary:

Early on I developed a series consisting of nine Bible studies on the "first principles" (Hebrews 6:1-3). The members of the church were called to memorize these studies and then teach others to become Christians. The most impacting was called "Discipleship" where, from my study of Scripture, I taught what was clear in Acts 11:26; SAVED=CHRISTIAN=DISCIPLE, simply meaning that you cannot be saved and you cannot be a true Christian without being a disciple also. I purposely developed this study to draw a sharp biblical distinction between the Lexington (later renamed Boston) church of Christ and all other groups. I taught that to be baptized, you must first make the decision to be a disciple and then be baptized. (Kip McKean, "Revolution Through Restoration," emphasis added)

The sad thing is that all of us are doomed to some element of "reactionary" teaching just by the nature of things. Yet, it is apparent if not obvious that a reactionary presentation of the gospel obscures the gospel.

In this case, First Principles has little or no mention of faith in Jesus, God's love for the individual, salvation by grace, and an enduring, eternal relationship with God that goes through ups and downs throughout life. These and other things things are all assumed if not neglected. Instead, it focuses on easily measured aspects of one's Christian life-- church attendance and involvement, outreach, repentance, baptism. Certainly these things have their place and are important, but in the absence of the foundation of other topics (Jesus' identity, God's love, salvation by grace, faith, etc.), these things are relatively meaningless.

Anachronistic Call to "Discipleship"
The paradigm of calling people today to be "disciples" is fallacious on a number of different levels. It has become recently fashionable in many religious circles (not just the International Churches of Christ) to speak of "discipleship" as a synonym for commitment, apparently in contrast to those who might "believe" but not live faithfully. It seems to me that Protestants are generally uncomfortable with the tension between salvation by grace and obedience or works of faithfulness. Greatly aided by the NIV translation of Matthew 28:18, the term "discipleship" has been appropriated to connect obedience or commitment with faith.

However, it is clear that one cannot be a disciple of Jesus today in the same manner as the apostles. Since his ascension into heaven, men cannot follow Jesus as the apostles did. Simply, the call to discipleship that the apostles received does not apply to anyone today.

Undaunted, proponents of "discipleship" terminology have spiritualized the concept. Accordingly, while the apostles literally followed Jesus, people today might "spiritually" follow Jesus. Jesus and the apostles were faced with Jesus' appointment with a real cross, people today might have an appointment with a "spiritual" cross, perhaps hardships or oppositions.

Nevertheless, all of this spiritualizing is unnecessary. John's gospel, written to the early church, re-defines discipleship for those who cannot follow Jesus physically: If we hold to his teachings, we are his disciples (John 8:32). This matches the proclamation of the early church, which called people to believe in Jesus and obey his commands as opposed to being "disciples of Jesus." This is seen in the Great Commission, the proclamations of Acts, and in summary statements like the conclusion of Romans:

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, [26] but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; [27] to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

Sometimes the proponents of "discipleship" terminology mention how often the term "disciple" or its cognates are used in the New Testament in contrast to the term "Christian." But apart from its use as a collective for those physically following Jesus (which has nothing to do with "discipleship" today), the term is fairly rare.

The term "disciple" was phased out of usage in the early church in favor of the terms "believer," "saint" and "brother" which became the prominent terms of choice to describe Christians. Consider the frequency of particular terms of address or description from the New Testament:

NT Books	Pct of NT	faith	brother	disciple	church	saint
Gospels	47%	153	107	237	3	19
Acts	13%	60	57	29	23	21
Paul's letters	24%	201	133	0	62	11
Remainder of NT	16%	83	58	0	26	21
Total	100%	497	355	266	114	72

The first reference to Christians in the church age refers to them as "believers" (Acts 2:44). This term became the most prominent description of the early Christians. It might still be the most prominent term today, if not for those who claim to "believe" but do not "obey enough" in the eye of the beholder.

In conclusion on this point, it is far more Scriptural in the church age to speak of believing, obeying and being faithful than it is to speak of "discipleship" (I have discussed this concept in more detail in the article " Disciples, Followers and Believers.").

What to Do With First Principles?
If I had my way, First Principles would be completely replaced by the framework I have recommended elsewhere in this study. In the absence of such a framework (and recognizing various other factors such as our Western, cultural desire for some "definition of faith"), I would recommend the following modifications to the series:

Add a "gospel" study that explicitly proclaims the gospel: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Discuss the reality and simplicity of forgiveness of sins and salvation by grace. This must be the overriding feature in the presentation of all other information. The gospel must be "good news."
The "discipleship" study should be removed and replaced with a "faithfulness" study that provides a Scriptural foundation for what God expects of us today. It could be employed to augment the "gospel" study.
The "light and darkness" study focuses too much on the darkness and generally misrepresents conversion-time repentance. Sin is important, but delving into minute details of one's sinful nature does not seem to be a part of the Biblical pattern of conversion.
The "cross" study should emphasize Jesus' love for us and the candidate's decision to accept the cross for his or her benefit. It should not be used to bring guilt or shame over sin, but thankfulness for the sacrifice. The cross is the supreme demonstration of God's love and the core of the "good news." It should not be turned into "bad news."
Augment the "word" study to discuss the history and reliability of the Bible and basic principles for interpretation (i.e. considering context). (Remember, the earliest Christians didn't even have the New Testament but took the oral gospel as the word of God from the apostles.)
The "kingdom" study needs to draw a more careful distinction between the kingdom and the church. It needs to have a more spiritual perspective on "seeking first the kingdom." (When Jesus spoke Matthew 6:33, he could not have meant that his original hearers needed to start attending church because the church didn't even exist yet.)
The "church" study should state what the church is for and how Christians have a function in it. It should show that churches have certain Scriptural directives (e.g. world evangelism, equipping of saints for ministry) which it is generally free to approach in the most beneficial manner it can conceive. It should not claim that the church is built on "the Bible" (this is historically and exegetically incorrect). Further, denominationalism should be addressed as a way that each group of churches is free to pursue what it believes is right. Yet, individual church families (including our own) can fall into the trap of following personalities and reactionary preferences instead of God. Churches must make special effort to follow God and not men or their own traditions. "Christian unity" can result only when churches commit to following God and the apostle's teaching over maintaining their own traditions or following influential people.
Most of the studies should be done after baptism, with the exception of the "gospel" study and studies necessary to answer questions on the part of the convert.

Preach the Gospel and Don't Let the Falsehoods of Others Distort the Gospel
After examining the practice of the apostolic church, it is clear that they did not have have a "study series" but a framework that covered the core elements of the gospel and allowed for meeting specific needs according to the hearers. Conversion was the believing response to the good new of Jesus and was unencumbered with other elements, especially reactionary ones. This spirit of clarity and simplicity needs to be restored to the church today.