Restoration Churches in the future
Hello all:
My last post on the Restoration Plea left some of the questions Joel asked unanswered. So, I’d like to tackle what I think some of the answers might be. Again, below, is Joel’s question, which he posted in a comment on Travis’ blog.
BTW…Joel, if you are out there, feel free to come on over and comment on my answer to your question to someone else lol….
I would like to hear some discussion on the evolution of restoration theology. Is there a place for the restoration plea in the 21st century or is it a completely dead idea altogether? What will restoration churches look like in the future and what divergent paths will we take. Are we doomed to more division or will we see a new unit form from all of the factions that exist today?
Thanks!
Posted by Joel Maners Tuesday, December, 6, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Joel’s question got me thinking a bit about what the Restoration Movement will look like 20 or 30 years from now. While no one but God knows for sure, I’d like to take a crack at making a couple of guesses. I think there are probably two or three models of what could occur in the future.
Unification
I think that in 20 to 30 years, we might see a more unified Restoration Movement. The International Churches of Christ no longer have a denominational structure and are, for now, congregational. If the ICOC remains congregational, and the talks that are occuring between some ICOC and COC congregations continue, I believe that we could see mergers occur. I’ve already heard a rumor of one or two congregations merging, but I do not know if that is correct.
I also believe that a merged ICOC and COC would make fellowship between churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches easier. From what I have heard, many ICOC congregations use instrumental music, but that they don’t always use it all of the time. Because attitudes towards instrumental music have been changing, the scenario of wider fellowship is more likey, but if ICOC churches and COC churches integrate, there will be a large number of members who are already used to the the idea of instrumental music.
However, this is not to predict that churches of Christ will move to instrumental music. In fact, I would say it is safer to stay a capella and just extend fellowship, without making a switch. Advocating instrumental music would be a dangerous play that would cause more splits, not unity.
My bet is that the Restoration Movement will move towards the pattern of churches of Christ in Australia and New Zealand. The churches in these two countries affiliate with both the a capella churches in America and the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. While there are a few a capella chuches that don’t fellowship with the larger body, the most are unified, and have quite a focus on unity.
So, I see our churches becoming affiliated with the Independent Christian Churches, so that the ICC churches really are “Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. However, I alo see scattered one-cup, no-class and non-institutional churches remaining, with little to no fellowship occuring between mainline congregations and those congregations.
Disintegration
Another model that I could see occuring is disintegration. That being, more and more splits, with weaker and weaker lines of fellowship.
The reason I can see this occuring is because of the sweeping calls for change occuring in our churches. While some of the calls for change are good, especially regarding issues such as holiness and social justice, some of the change can be not so good as well. Holiness and Social Justice attitudinal changes are defensible, even demanded, by the bible. However, some change, such as wider roles for women, instrumental music in worship, praise teams, etc., are not very defensible in a fellowship that looks for authority in scripture for everything that we do. Strong pushes for these changes will most likely result in splits and disunity.
So, not only might we see one-cuppers, no-class, and non-institutional fellowships that don’t associate with other groups, we could start to see non-women leadership churches, non-praise team churches, non-this and non-that churches of Christ.
Status Quo
Finally, there is the chance that the status quo will remain. New programs, styles of music and ministry will continue to develop, but change will be small and incremental.
Let us hope and pray for more Unity in the church. Let us hope and pray that we can establish ties to our one-cup, no-class and non-institutional breathern as well. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, whether we are liberal or conservative.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
December 13th, 2005 at 7:48
At the risk of Stating The Obvious, I’ll say it: Unity Is A Hard Thing.
One concept I agreed with in ICOC’s was the idea that you had to “forge” unity. It would take work.
Those of us who saw where Kip would take that certainly have been left with a bad taste from it, as valid as it really is.
Also, we are disinclined to trust. Many ICOC folks learned to trust all other ICOC’s as True Disciples, yet many folks would look at me like I had a third eye when I’d come home from visiting friends or family and would visit their congregations instead of the local ICOC (where I knew nobody at all). Honestly, 20 years ago (when I was still a member of a “mainline” CoC) I’d have felt the same about someone else visiting an independant Christian Church. ‘Not saying I was right. Just ignorant.
I don’t even know how to broach the subject with our elders here. We’ve gone to activities (rarely) that were sponsored by other local congregations. Members were genuinely excited to help my son collect items for a CoC run children’s home. But I don’t think we know what else to do. (One idea I’ve had is that I really wish our singles would have some mixers with singles from all of the local Restoration Movement congregations since each congregation only has like 20 singles total. But I’m very happily unsingle
so I don’t have a lot of sway there…)
Mark
December 13th, 2005 at 9:02
Hey Clarke,
I think there will be some of all three (unification, disintegration, and status quo). In a postmodern world, perhaps the technical arguments of the past will seem less relevant, so perhaps in time the unification will dominate.
For Mark: As an elder in a former ICOC congregation, I intend to build bridges with baptized believers wherever I can find them. Even with unbaptized believers, I dream of doing some of what Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos. I think that Jesus would be doing that if he were present in the flesh.
Alan
December 13th, 2005 at 9:48
The only thing we can be sure of is some degree of division. It happened when the apostles were alive, and it’s happened ever since. Ought not to be, but that’s the nature of anything containing humans.
It certainly seems likely the progressive Churches of Christ and the more conservative institutional (CI) churches will go their own ways at some point, for example. The progressive churches seem likely follow the community church movement, but I have no idea what the CI churches will do.
Reconciliation with non-institutional (NI) churches would seem a likely possibility (given that the institutions at the center of that controversy almost entirely will go with the progressives, and that the generation involved in that split is dying off). But it seems unlikely to be a widespread thing to me; there’s still a very distinct difference in understanding of the Bible there, and there’s still very little contact between people in the two groups. Indeed, it’s been almost two decades since the last “meeting” effort to find widespread unity (and that one, IIRC, featured very few CIs, mostly progressives looking to persuade NIs of the “new hermeneutic” and not all that interested in anything the NIs had to say).
All things are possible with God, but God doesn’t choose to make all things possible for us. It’s in our hands to choose if we want to go back to the Bible or not.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:13
Mark:
I think your idea is a great one about the singles, even if you’re married. Projects like that need a few mature Christians with strong relationship experience helping along the way. Would you say your congregation is more reformist or is it going back towards Kip?
Alan:
You are probably correct, all three will occur in some fasion. You refered to yourself as an elder in a “former ICOC congregation,” has the identity of your congregation changed so to a mainline COC, or do you just mean not a part of the “denominational structure” as we like to call it.
Jeff:
I checked out your website, I like it. I wasn’t quite sure if you were talking tounge-in-cheek before with one of your prior posts, but it appears that you are a member of the NI churches.
I’m glad that you are here and I’m glad that you participate, I’d like to see people from all restoration backgrounds here.
I have to agree that the only thing to be sure of is division, but of course it doesn’t have to be that way.
I certainly hope that the more liberal churches of CHrist do not all join in with the Community Church Movement. I am not a fan of that at all. I believe that we as members of Churches of Christ need to be proud of our heritage and not shirk away from it just because some feel there is baggage attached to it.
I’d like to see another meeting to find some common ground, and it should include some reason dialoge and not one group preaching to the other. “The New Heremeneutic” split a congregation I was a member of, and I feel it is fairly dangerous, personally.
As far as going back to the Bible, I think that is something that we need to be constantly doing. I’m actually not very liberal, believe it or not. While you and I would disagree about institutions, and probably about the meaning of the word fellowship and the use of the treasury for things like potlucks, I am a strong believer in Command, Example, and Necessary Inference. Where I get caught up is with the “silence” principle. Also, while I believe that we should use the bible as a pattern for our churches, we need to avoid using it as a law book (and trust me, I can be a very good lawyer).
We defiantly should go back to the bible. I think unity is best acheived when we return to the bible and use it to determine our beliefs and practices. However, there will be genuine differences of opinion. It is shameful for us to disfellowship each other because we hold a difference in opinion over what we believe. Each congregation is independent, and personally, I think that when one fellowship disfellowships another, that there is a violation of that independence right there. Church A’s elder need to determine what is right for Church A, not for Church B. Furthermore, just becuase I go to church A does not mean that you are not my brother.
Anyway, just some of my disorganized thoughts….. not all of which are aimed at you. Glad to have you here.
-Clarke
December 13th, 2005 at 13:25
Thanks for the warm welcome, Clarke. The Internet is a great medium for communication, and I appreciate the work you’ve done on your blog. I like reading blogs from other Christians (even ones I may disagree with) because they give me things to think about. I don’t know that I’d be considered a “typical” NIer (nor do I know if there’s even such a thing), though.
Re: my site, thanks. I originally started it several years ago as an online study site, but it’s kind of grown to the point where it’s tough to maintain. I’m overhauling the software behind it (I’m a web programmer) to make it more of a “community” site, so maybe it’ll get a little easier. Or not. Right now, it’s a melding of four or five separate software systems, not always working in unison. Pretty good metaphor for this discussion?
Re: progressive churches: Like I said, it’s just my (outside) opinion. But the churches Lucado and Shelly preach at (as well as a few others) certainly seem well down that path to me. As they go, I believe, will go the majority of PI churches and most of the institutions with them.
Re: a common ground meeting: I don’t see there’s much impetus from either side for it right now. Both sides seem occupied with fighting internal battles (the CIs with the progressives, the NIs with each other over marriage and divorce).
Re: fellowship: From my reading of the NT, I see fellowship on earth being the result of fellowship in heaven. Thus, I only draw lines based on matters of salvation. Sin and causing others to sin, basically. This includes collective actions of the church (i.e., making someone support that which they believe to be wrong) but not personal ones with which I may disagree. So, I could accept someone who believes in premillenialism even though I think he’s wrong as wrong can be about it, but I couldn’t accept someone who’s amillenial (like me) who pushes his position in a way that causes himself and/or others to sin even though I’d believe his basic position is true.
I think the tongue-in-cheek comment refers to the previous post on unity? A bit, perhaps. But I do believe that we can’t apply Romans 14 when one of us believes something is a matter of doctrine rather than opinion; in that chapter, both parties recognize it’s a matter of opinion. I Corinthians 8 is where we have to go in this case, where Paul says he will give up something that’s a matter of opinion/indifference so as not to lose his brother.
The best example (true story) I know of is one preacher who grew a beard one fall. A church he was to hold a meeting for hold about it and called to cancel the meeting. They didn’t allow a man with a beard to speak in the assembly or serve publically (never did find out why exactly). He could have insisted on his liberty, written them up, called them names, etc. Instead, he shaved his beard and held the meeting - preaching about matters of tradition vs. doctrine in a non-divisive way.
That’s the spirit of I Corinthians 8 to me. Paul puts the burden on the one with knowledge of something being a matter of indifference. (This is laying aside the objective truth of whether it actually is doctrinal or opinion, of course, for the sake of the discussion.)
As I said in the other comments section, there are only three paths to scriptural unity I can see when one party believes it’s a matter of doctrine:
1. The party who believes it’s a matter of opinion can give it up.
2. The party who believes it’s a matter of doctrine can be persuaded it’s really a matter of opinion.
3. The party who believes it’s a matter of opinion can be persuaded it’s really a matter of doctrine.
I would also agree we need to not use the Bible as a law book - as the Pharisees did, turning the letter against the intent. Loopholes aren’t part of the law of Christ.
We do need to realize God’s given commands that we need to obey, though. And that we don’t always understand why He’s done what He’s done, nor will He feel a need to explain Himself sometimes (Job comes to mind). May not be the way we’d do it or want it, but it’s not up to us. God only has to say something once to make it true. It’s up to us to learn His will and accept it after that, always examining our conclusions against His revelation and changing when we find we’re wrong.
Anyway, long enough post. Thanks for the welcome!
December 14th, 2005 at 10:02
Wow, neat discussion. I feel like I need a restoration movement dictionary. NI, CI, PI, no-class (that one’s kinda funny), one-cup - it makes my head spin. Up until 2-3 years ago, I thought it was just Us (ICOC) and Them (’mainline’). Any resources for a simple explanation of the various sects?
As far as the ICOC goes, I think there are many of us who call ourselves part of a ‘former’ ICOC church. (BTW - My church itself has made no such proclamation. I don’t think many Churches have, it’s mainly individuals who are saying such.) That’s partly because the ICOC as it was founded is gone and partly because what folks (who are familiar with us) picture when you say ICOC is not what we are anymore. There are some, mainly Kip and his supporters that would like to resurrect much of what the ICOC was, but the rest of us are happy to be done with that. Now we move on into something new. Not a new ICOC, it’s dead, but not a traditional COC or Independent Christian church either. So we say we’re a ‘former’ ICOC church.
Oh, and I think a better was to characterize the ICOC on instruments is to say that we are non-instrumental in practice, but not in doctrine. Nine times out of ten you will not find instruments in an ICOC service, in my experience in four congregations anyway. There is the occasional special song with a background track or a band, but that’s the exception not the rule.
I owe you some ICOC links too, don’t I?
December 14th, 2005 at 18:18
Doug:
Glad you are enjoying it. I am. Personally, I think the amount of diversity there is in the churches of Christ is a wondeful thing, I just wish there was fellowship between all of these different types of groups.
I might try my hand at writing out a primer and dictionary as a page item on my blog. There sure are enough acronyms, and I’m not even sure I understand all the sub-groups.
I can use whatever ICOC links that you have that aren’t currently on Restorationmovement.org. Alan sent me a couple more, and I’ll be adding those soon as well.
-Clarke
December 15th, 2005 at 6:34
Doug,
I know the feeling. Up until a few years back, I only thought it was non-institutional/institutional. Was vaguely aware of the ICOC, but threw it in with the institutional churches.
Some resources I could recommend:
The Wikipedia entry on the Restoration Movement is very light on Restoration history, but gives a pretty good description of the major groups within churches of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement). It could use some heavy rewriting, but no one’s been brave/stupid enough to do it yet.
There’s also an entry on NI churches maintained in part by yours truly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_churches_of_Christ_%28non-institutional%29).
For statistics, you can check out Mac Lynn’s 1997 report on the various groups (http://webminister.com/growth01/plan0231.htm). It’s the most current comprehensive look I know of.
If you’re a book guy, there’s Richard Hughes’ book and David Edwin Harrell’s book. Hughes is from the progressive institutional point of view, while Harrell is non-institutional (and not to be confused with the Ed Harrell who blogs). There’s also the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which I confess I haven’t read . (Clarke, if you’ve got an Amazon associate account, feel free to change these URLs to reflect that.)
Hope these help some.
December 15th, 2005 at 17:36
Hey Clarke,
I was reading through your discussion and comments and noticed that you’ve got my blog on your “blogroll.” Don’t know when you did that, but I appreciate it! I enjoy stopping by your blog. Are you going to the ACU Lectureship? We’re planning to cover the unity discussions there.
Bobby
December 15th, 2005 at 21:00
Bobby:
I’m glad you’re here. I’ve had you on my blogroll since I found out you had a blog….I think around the time Huricane Katrina started.
I wish I could attend the ACU Lectureship, but between work, family, and the cash crunch, I won’t be able to make it.
I am going to try and make it to the Pepperdine Bible Lectures if I can, its a lot closer to home than ACU. I don’t suppose you’ll be there, Unity is the subject at hand there this year as well.
Any plans to write a story or two about blogging and churches of Christ?
-Clarke
December 16th, 2005 at 9:10
Clarke,
We did a story about “high-tech” advancements in churches of Christ a few months back where we briefly referenced blogs and mentioned the high number of hits on Mike Cope’s blog. It’s worth considering doing something more to the point. Any ideas on a possible angle? It’s always hard writing about Web stuff in the print edition because (1) half your readers don’t get it, and (2) the other half think you’re a moron because it’s old news to them. But I’m open to ideas.
Thanks,
Bobby
December 16th, 2005 at 9:40
Clarke said:
I, of course, disagree. I believe these positions are defended through the Bible, but that is coming from my own hermeneutic, which many would call the dreaded “New Hermeneutic.” In reality, the new hermeneutic has been around a long time, and in most denominations other than our own, it is the only hermeneutic. In my opinion, unity will be hard to come by if we hold to a command, example, necessary inference hermeneutic, but that’s just me.
Also, many of us who are in support of gender equality in our churches see it as an issue of social justice, so that complicates things a bit.
One more thing, while there may be some more progressive COCs moving in the community church model (Lucado’s congregation already has basically done that. Shelly’s, and he is not the preacher there anymore, will most likely never do that. They are proud to be COC.), there are many of us who would greatly lament that decision. I will never do that, but I understand those who do. Personally, I believe we need to hold onto our heritage, as Clarke has said, and be proud of it, warts and all.
I have more to say, but it’s back to work time. Enjoying the discussion, though. And I’m glad to see the diversity in your readership.
December 16th, 2005 at 23:42
Bobby:
Well, an angle might be how members of the church are using the blogosphere to break down barriers between the International Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches. For the most part, while many of us have differing points of view and disagree on some issues, we are able to keep a civil, intelligent conversation going about doctrinal issues, the restoration plea, and unity. As some of my fellow bloggers like to state, thats often not possible within our fellowship.
-Clarke
April 17th, 2006 at 22:04
I the pastor of a small group locatd in Tagum City Philippines.
my name is Fred and my wife is Rose and two lovely daughters.
I am the host pastor of this small cogregation we have 16 adults and many children.
We are purely independent and we have no any denominational affiliation.
Help us pray that we can acquire even used books, sunday school materials that we can grow more spiritually.
We want you tobe our prayer partner in the Lord.
Thanks and God bless.
No negative comments…….I am so blessed with your ministry.
Cordially in Christ,
Pastor Fred Labial
July 8th, 2006 at 17:14
[…] I’ve been thinking alot lately about why our movement is important. I’ve done some writing on this subject before (Restoration Churches in the Future and The Restoration Plea in the 21st Century,) but I want to revisit it again. […]