Hello all:
I’ve been reading a few blogs lately. Refer to Greg’s Blog and Travis’ blog if you don’t know to what I’m refering.
When I read comments like I’ve read on various blogs recently, I come away very puzzled at times. Maybe I am wired differently than the rest of my blogging brothers and sisters.
Many have stated that the entire concept of restoration is chilling to them. One person stated that restoration implies that the church was broken, and we had to fix it.
The concept of “Restoration” is really two-fold as I see it. It was/is a movement that held the lofty goal of creating unity of all believers, and that the easiest way to do that was by going back to the patterns found in the New Testament.
The second was the premise that the church itself was broken. The “Great Apostasy” of the Roman Catholic church needed to be corrected.
I saw a post lately on a blog from a member of the church that denied that there really was an apostasy. I would have to emphatically state that there was. The Catholic church went so far off from basic biblical teaching that I find it hard to believe that anyone inside the church of Christ would deny such a thing. A look at the practice of selling indulgences is enough for most people.
So, the restoration movement was an attempt to restore the church to a form pleasing to God. This isn’t just a church of Christ ideal. In this effort, we were joined by our disciple and independent brethren. However, before that, there were numerous reformation efforts, some with pure intentions and some not.
But, I know most of you are familiar with church history.
The argument has been made many times by many of you and many others that there has not been enough emphasis on the saving blood of Jesus in the church of Christ. This may or may not be true in individual congregations of the church across the world. I for one have not seen it, but I don’t doubt the many accounts that I have heard. However, that does not mean that we should blindly throw the doctrines of the church away because of what many perceive to be a lack of focus on other issues. What is needed is balance.
I would have to say that the theme of the restoration movement, besides unity, has been obedience. We should be obedient to the Lord. We should try our best. We will all fail, as we are all sinners. Those that have gone before us have tried to do their best, and many have failed, just like we have.
Do we have it all right? Have we “perfected” restoration? Of course not. Should we stop trying? I think not. There is nothing wrong with trying your best to obey the Lord, be it in any way.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
October 11th, 2005 at 7:55
I believe the book “Unity In Truth” was a great book on the Restoration History. The best one I have read. The more people are in tune with the truth the more united we become. The ‘’church’ isn’t united, not because of the mechanics involved (church name, method of music etc etc) but because of the internals. Jesus’ hardest teachings dealt with you him being the center of a person life. Does one really believe and therefore acts upon his instructions in their lives. Having been in the churches for a number of years we would rather sing about ‘kneeling at the cross’ than actually taking up our own cross and following him.
Thankfully the church can’t be broken. It is only a matter of if one is apart of the church or playing church. Most people feel at ease with ‘the saving blood’ of Christ as Barna reports most belief they are fine with God. But are people comfortable putting to death their own lives that they may live?
October 11th, 2005 at 13:29
Thanks for the link, and for reading my blog. Even though we may not always agree, I greatly value your opinion. And, here, respectfully, is my two cents…
I am the blogger who wrote about the “Alleged Apostasy of the Church.” For me, to say that the church apostatized after Constantine, or whenever one wants to date it, is to ignore the history of the Church. Though there was (always has been, always will be) sin and corruption in the Church when Martin Luther came along (and he had his fair share as well), the Spirit has never left the Church. Christ said, “I am with you always,” and he meant it. His presence was not located to some small, obscure group of Christians who allegedly carried on “New Testament Christianity,” apart from the organized, corrupt church. Christ was there, in the midst of the mess, working through the only thing Christ has to work through: broken people.
It is a historical fallacy to assume that the actions of some in the hierarchy of the church reflected the actions of all. Though the medieval and post-Reformation Church had many corrupt Popes, Cardinals, Priest and the like, there were also many wonderful, Christ-like examples actively involved in the life of the Church. Thomas Aquinas, for one, was a very Christ-like man, committed to keeping the Church faithful to the cause of Christ. Monasteries sprung up all over medieval Europe as attempts to call the Church back to the Christ-like life. In these monasteries lived faithful, devote women and men of God who prayed “without ceasing” for the church.
To ignore the centuries of Church History between the time of the Apostles and the Reformation is to turn one’s back on the women and men who carried the Church on their backs; it is to ignore the work of the Holy Spirit, always present in the Church inspiring Christians to become like Christ; it is to ignore the people who unceasingly preserved the teachings of scripture and of the apostles, so that we, today, may have the benefit of faith in Christ.
Paul tells us to acknowledge the importance of every part of the body, which is the Church. The body parts of the Church are composed of the living and the dead, all equally valuable. When we ignore our history, whether we agree with all that happened or not, we cut off much needed parts of the body.
As for the topic of restoration, though I am a member of Churches of Christ, I am not a fan of restorationism as we have often interpreted it. Restorationism assumes two things that I cannot agree with: 1) There was a perfect, pristine first century church that can and should be imitated; 2) Any innovation in Church practice is wrong and should be avoided.
Firstly: Reading through the pages of scripture, I find no perfect, pristine first century Church. From Corinth to Jerusalem, the Churches were as messed us as our congregations are today. My question is, which 1st century church should be restored? There was no unified church practice. The study of early Church History makes this clear: disciples in different places did things differently. One does not have to stray too far from the letters of Paul to see this to be true.
Secondly: I believe, and perhaps this is where you and I disagree most, that the Church is suppose to evolve with time. Looking back on the history of the Church, I see the Church changing to meet new cultural circumstances. I see councils in the early centuries of the Church hammering out orthodoxy so that the heretics among them would not lead the Church away from the central teachings of Christ. I see the leaders of the Church gathering together, centuries after scripture was written, deciding which books of the Bible were canonical and which were not. This was no accident or aberration to God’s plan. The Church has always changed with time and adapted to its situation, as all living things, created by God, do. Sure, mistakes were made; sin crept in. But, through it all, the Holy Spirit was alive and active, inspiring the Church to be the Church in her cultural location. Change is not bad; change is necessary for life.
One more thing: I believe there is another option for us restorationists. Barton W. Stone represented a view of restorationism that we have often neglected. Stone was not interested, so much, in restoring the “ancient church.” Stone desired to restore the life and devotion of the ancient church, who sought to imitate their lives after Christ. This is a big difference. When one only seeks to restore the ancient church, one is focused on patterns, forms, and structures that may or may not be imitated (or even expedient) in today’s society. But, when one seeks to restore the life behind the ancient church, that is, their devotion to Christ and the imitation of his life and teachings, then such a focus can and must be present in the church of today. The first century church was the church of Christ, not because it had proper worship, proper leadership, and a proper view of scripture. The first century church, like the church throughout time, is the church of Christ because it was a church that imitated Christ. This, for me, is something worth restoring.
October 12th, 2005 at 5:15
I would agree, there was no perfect church as we would describe it and not everything should be avoided.
However, I would want further discourse on the evolution of the church. On the onset I would strongly disagree but would like to hear your take on it.
My take is that approach that Bible is a living and breathing document is the same aproach that some have taken with the Constitution of the US and lost the original intent of the documnet. One can treat both like a simple string of words and treat it like a dictionary and lose the intent of the writer.
October 15th, 2005 at 14:13
Travis:
You are welcome for the link, I made it permanent in the blogroll. I meant to get back to the comments sooner but of course work and family always get in the way.
You wrote alot… I will attempt to respond to as much as I can, although I am sure I will probably miss some parts.
In your second paragraph about the church being apostatized, I would have to disagree with you entirely. I believe there is more than enough evidence in history that the church turned into a great behemoth of apostasy. While I have no doubt that Christ and the spirit did not leave the church, that does not mean the church did not leave them. I, for one, do not put any currency into the argument that there was a small “faithful remnant” that carried out first century Christianity while the Roman Catholic Church continued down its path of apostasy. While I do believe that the church was corrupted, I also believe that there were many faithful people whose goal was to follow Christ.
I agree with your statement that Christ continued to work through what he had to work with, which is broken people.
I do not ignore church history, at all. Nor will I sit back from my spot and condemn all of those between the Apostles and the Reformation or Restoration. The power to condemn or save belongs to the Lord alone, and his intent is of course, totally unknown to me. What I can, and will, say, is that by my reading of the scriptures, that the Catholic church diverged from many of the teachings of the scriptures, and that the end result was apostasy.
As far as your interpretation of Restoration, I would not agree with the first assumption that you list, that there was a pristine and perfect first century church to replicate.
You are correct when you stated that reading through scripture you found no perfect assembly of disciples. If you did, the gospel would be much different than it is.
What I would put in place of your first assumption is that Paul and other New Testament writers provided the New Testament congregations with practices and advice and admonishments about how the church is to worship, among many other things. Paul had to provide that advice and the admonishment he gave because things were not as they were supposed to be. I think it is our duty as good Christians to take what Paul and others wrote and apply it, whether the writings be referring to doctrines of worship or Christian living.
As for the second assumption that you made, that assumption would only be valid in churches of Christ that are a capella. The Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ don’t feel that innovation is a bad thing at all. In fact, I would say that many of our a capella churches don’t really feel innovation is a bad thing. One only has to look at the anti-institutionalism divisions of the 1950’s and 60’s to realize that.
You are correct about where you and I disagree the most. I can agree with you that the church must somewhat reflect the culture it lives in to be effective, but the church must not surrender to culture on any front.
As far as your thoughts on Stone, I would also have to agree that restoring the “life of the early church” is something that is badly needed. However, I don’t see restoring the spiritual life of the church as being exclusive to restoring early practices of the church. I understand that many in the church of Christ feel that we have focused too much on patterns and not on the substance of faith. That belief may hold a lot of water. However, I think where we will succeed the most is where we do both, but with keeping more of our focus on living the way that the Lord wants us to live.
After that much writing, I feel like a nap.
-Clarke