Hello all:
I’m taking a break from homework. I figured I’d write a quick blog post to let everyone know I’m still alive.
I have to give a 20 minute presentation on Christianity in North America to my History of Christianity class. I got assigned North America because I went to the Pepperdine Lectures and the Stone-Campbell Symposium, missing two weeks of class. My professor decided that since I have such an interest in the Restoration Movement that I would be good fit for North America.
The text we are using A World History of Christianity, mentions the Restoration Movement twice. It mentions Cain Ridge and the emotional excesses of the revival, and it mentions Alexander Campbell and the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania.
On page 430, it says this about our movement: “The Christian Association, spearheaded by Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), attempted to recapture the unity of the Christian Community through a form of radical restorationism. Arguing that the New Testament was the only true guide for the Church, they offered as their maxim ‘where the scriptures speak, we speak; where the scriptures are silent, we are silent’. Such movements, however, rather than overcoming the divisions, contributed to them.”
What do you think?
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
May 29th, 2006 at 12:57
Hi Clarke,
That’s a thought-provoking perspective. My first reaction is that the writer is taking an adversarial position. On further reflection, history does support that position–but why? Perhaps the reason the RM has not been successful lies with the way its efforts were received, as much with the RM approach itself. The existing denominations have often responded by defending their turf (ie their justification for existing as organizations) rather than coming to the table for dialog.
Ecumenical organizations seemingly have had more success, maybe because they don’t seek to take down the denominational distinctions.
I think the fractured state of the RM today is not so much due to the approach of the original leaders as of the contentious turn of attitudes in the 3rd and 4th generations. That certainly has not helped our message to the denominations around us.
Alan
May 30th, 2006 at 6:01
Isn’t the existence of denominations divisive? If you have differences, leave and start a denomination, its ok, but if you stay and have differences you contribute to divisiveness?
May 30th, 2006 at 18:47
Hi TechSun,
I guess you could say the existence of denominations is evidence of division that occurred sometime in the past. My impression is that the heated rhetoric between denominations has cooled substantially compared to 100, 200, or more years ago. I don’t think the same thing could be said about the RM. Of course those are just my impressions.
Alan
May 30th, 2006 at 21:41
Hello:
I agree with you Alan. Much of it is more evidence of past division than current. The evangelical community seems to be moving closer and closer together on a lot of issues.
If we can get passed the issues that divide us in the Restoration Movement, I think we will have a much better chance of promoting the truths that are obvious to us but aren’t obvious enough to the rest of the conservative churches out there such as the importance of baptism and the observance of the Lord’s Supper.
-Clarke