The Restoration Plea in the 21st Century.
Hello all:
Over on Travis’ blog there is a conversation going on about the imminent reincarnation of the MISSION journal and what people would like to see in it.
In that conversation, the comment was made:
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
While I won’t go into the evolution of Restoration theology here, I am driven to answer Joel’s question about whether or not there is a place in the 21st century for the Restoration Plea.
There is most certainly a place for the Restoration Plea today, and I believe there always will be.
The Restoration Plea hinges on two beliefs:
1) That Christians should be united.
2) That unity can be built around the abandonment of written creeds and a return to the pattern of New Testament belief and practice.
Obviously, opinions on what constitute New Testament beliefs and practices varies widely. One person will read the New Testament and come away with the belief that we should all use one communion cup, another will come away with the though that a capella singing is what is called for in worship, others believe that the use of the instrument is fine. Some feel that because a college, ministry group, missionary society or other para-church organization isn’t mention in the bible, that they are a departure from what we should do.
That is the nature of a movement that calls for a return to New Testament practices. There are honest differences of opinion, and there will always be those two disagree with one another on the interpretation and application of passages in the Bible.
The key is that we allow room for opinion. We even need to allow some room for error. There is nothing wrong with some healthy debate now and then, and if you genuinely feel someone is wrong, gently teach them the correct way. But, we must not disfellowship and divide over matters involving silence in the scriptures or opinion of man.
If the issue is not one that effects salvation, then we agree to disagree, and continue to love each other. There will, of course, be those that don’t agree to disagree as well. We must continue to love those individuals as well and show them that we truly are their brothers and sisters in Christ whether they agree with us or not.
Now that I’ve dealt with some of the internal issues of Restoration, let looks at why we need the Restoration Plea in the 21st Century.
People need to hear the Gospel.
As we all know, people need to hear the good news. And, unfortunately, the majority of those out there telling people about the good news are telling people that they can be saved by reciting the “Sinners Prayer.” The scriptures specifically promise salvation to those who repent of their sins and are baptized. Restoration Movement churches have close to a monopoly on teaching baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. While some churches ordain baptism by “church ordinance”, just as many do not.
Furthermore, as we all know, Restoration churches emphasize the Lord’s Supper on a weekly basis, while most other churches practice it at most once a month.
Restoration Churches hold the New Testament to be inerrant, and usually hold it to be relevant to our lives. We are more-or-less a people of the book, and have a strong desire to do what the Lord says.
The Restoration Movement has a lot of merit to it. One stream of the movement is the fastest growing church in the United States. While not everything that has occurred during the quest for Restoration has been positive, we have, and continue, to do alot of good works that glorify God.
For my next post, I think I will try and tackle the other questions posed by Joel.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
December 7th, 2005 at 12:57
Thanks for the link and the discussion. I always appreciate your thoughts.
December 7th, 2005 at 19:36
The problem is that the various groups descended from the Restoration Movement today have widely disparate views of how to understand God’s will. Until we fix that and come to a common understanding, anything else is just trying to gloss over the problem.
We could have unity tomorrow - if the less conservative among us tossed out their pianos, disbanded their missionary societies, stopped funding colleges, forsook denominations, and so on - we’d have almost instant unity. Almost no one’s interested in unity that requires them to sacrifice what they see as a mere preference, though; they want the more conservative to instead agree to violate his/her conscience and extend fellowship.
Paul was willing to give up eating meat (or anything else) to preserve a brother. How many among Restoration Movement churches are willing to do the same on what they consider matters of opinion?
Consider it a challenge.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:19
I think many are seeking the “restoration” plea only in the context of a fellowship called, the “churches of Christ.” However, if you step into most community church settings, you find more of the restoration spirit in that context than anywhere else. That is why I’m so drawn to those churches. It is wonderful to see the unity of believers from so many backgrounds. It is also great to see stronger Biblical teaching. Andy Stanley of Northpoint Community church says that baptism will not save you. But he also says, “neither will a prayer (the “sinner’s prayer”) save you. Only Jesus can save you. Wow, that’s healthy teaching right there. I wish more from our tribe could balance that out. But I loosely say “our tribe” because honestly, even though I have a strong sense of “restoration plea” in me, I feel NO loyalty to a group called the “churches of Christ” for that to take place.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:37
Travis:
You are welcome for the link. Don’t want to add to the discussion?
Jeff B:
I understand where you are coming from. I grew up in the non-institutional churches. I also agree that what you proposed is one solution for unity, albeit it will never happen. Unfortunatly, the divisions already exist, and most have existed for at least 50 years. Furthermore, one group is claiming freedom under Romans 14, the other that Romans 14 should keep others from excercising that freedom. The passage has lessons for both groups.
Jon:
You’ll find quite a restoration plea occuring in the Independent Christian Churches. Head over to Christian Church Today and you will see discussions on Restoration. The Christian Restoration Association is an association of the Independent Christian Churches, not the a capella churches of Christ. The Restoration Hearld is also a publication of the Independent Christian Churches. The Restoration Plea is alive and well with those brothers and sisters, just in a slightly different context.
I would suppose that those community churches don’t have much in the way of doctrine, which would make it quite a bit easier to achieve unity. However, doctrine is important.
It is very true that Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins, and God’s grace, saves us. However, the scriptures are also very clear that we are to be baptized for the remission of our sins. The sinners prayer is no where in the bible. So, I wouldn’t exactly call that a strong biblical teaching.
-Clarke
December 8th, 2005 at 9:11
Clarke,
Yep, the type of unity I discussed isn’t likely to happen. But I’ve found starting with that to be a useful way to distinguish those truly interested in discussing unity from those only interested in getting their way. If someone won’t even consider giving up (what they perceive as) a liberty to preserve unity, they aren’t really serious, IMO, and thus not open to fruitful discussion.
Romans 14 can only be made to apply if both sides agree it’s a matter of opinion rather than faith. In all the issues listed, one side doesn’t. Plus, we have to consider I Corinthians 8, which is what I alluded to, where Paul addresses the one who knows meat sacrificed to an idol is nothing and mentions the other party as one who didn’t have that knowledge. Seems to me that applies much better in these situations.
There’s really only two ways to have true unity:
1) The brother who believes something is a matter of opinion can give it up so as not to cause others who believe it’s doctrinal to stumble (see I Cor.
.
2) Someone has to be persuaded. One party can be persuaded that the issue is a matter of opinion and apply Romans 14, or the other can be persuaded that it is a matter of faith and change his position. This requires open hearts and open Bibles; as always, neither party should ask that someone else if they aren’t willing to give the same consideration.
If someone’s not open to either of these, my feeling is that the fault for disunity relies within them (though it’s also possible both parties have the same attitude). Can’t have unity if both parties aren’t willing to be reconciled, sadly.
BTW, in IE5, your comments entry box is being truncated to the far right. I can type after the cursor gets past it, but I can’t see it. If I resize the screen, it snaps back to the right size until I start typing again. Weird.
December 13th, 2005 at 13:54
Clarke: Sorry I didn’t comment more earlier. I was in the middle of finishing up grades for the professor I work for, being that it is the end of our semester here at ACU, and had no time to say more than I did.
With that said, now I have more time. Personally, I don’t think there is much validity to the “restoration idea” in the 21st century, or in any century, for that matter, as it has been expressed in Churches of Christ. Though there are other ways to understand “restoration”, the traditional way we in Churches of Christ have understood it is a “restoration of New Testament teachings and practices” or a “restoration of the New Testament Church.” Here’s the problem I have with this.
First, one must understand where I am coming from. I believe that there are Christians in other denominations, other than those represented by the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. The founders of this “Restoration Movement” (I feel the name “Stone-Campbell Movement” is a better name, since “restoration” was not the only, or even primary, plea of our founders; unity was) believed this as well. The plea of both Stone and Campbell was for Christians of all “sects” to unify. The assumption in this plea is that there were, indeed, Christians in other sects, for if there wasn’t, there would be no Christians to unify.
Now, on to the business of “restoration”. In order to “restore the New Testament Church”, there must be something to restore. Looking through scripture, one finds a Church in transition. There were Jewish churches and Gentile churches, and Jewish-Gentile churches. There were churches that met in homes, and churches that met in Synagogues. There were churches that could be praise by Paul and other apostles, and churches that had “lost their first love.” So, if you are to restore the NT Church, which NT church will you restore?
Then, of course, one must consider the fact that the NT itself was not put together in the form we have it today and accepted in the churches until the 3rd century. Of course, the contents of the NT were circulated throughout the churches, but it was not declared by the church to be “scripture” until the 3rd century. This illustrates the evolution of the Church. The Church, I believe, is always in process, always changing and growing, like every living thing should do. The goal of the church should not be to bring back the old, or hold on to the “tried and true”, but to reinvent the old, bringing into a new time and place. This doesn’t give the church license to throw out the core teachings of the Church, such as the Nicene or Apostle’s creed explicate, but it does give the church permission to adapt and change it’s practices throughout time.
Personally, I feel that the restoration of the NT church is impossible in any century other than the 1st century. The NT church was what it was because of its cultural situations and because of the personalities involved. This cannot be duplicated in any time. Are there things of the NT church that can be preserved? Of course. But the goal is not to create a carbon copy of the original.
With that said, I think there is still some value to the “restoration plea” as expressed by Barton W. Stone. Stone differed from Campbell in that he was not so much interested in restoring the “ancient gospel and order of things” as he was interested in restoring the life of the NT church, meaning the holiness and faithfulness of these first Christians. For Stone, the important thing was to live lives of holiness. This, I believe, is something we desperately need in the church and something worth “restoring.”
As for the topic of Christian Unity: Unity, I believe, can be accomplished only when we are willing to accept diversity. I just finished reading Leroy Garrett’s book A Lover’s Quarrel. In it, Garrett talks about his life-dedication to the idea (often called by critics a heresy) of “unity in diversity”. I agree with him that this is the only way we can achieve unity today. The church is diverse–and should be–because we are all human. Conformity is not the goal. We should love our diversity, treasure it, and seek to learn from those with those different than us.
Those are some random thoughts I have at the moment. They may or may not contribute to the discussion, and I know I have left many open ends. But, I’m willing to discuss this further.
Thanks Clarke for your irenic spirit and dedication to exploring the issues. I appreciate it.
December 13th, 2005 at 14:17
Wow, everytime I come back to your site, it has a new theme. Fun.
December 13th, 2005 at 14:28
Travis:
Thanks for the comment… I’ll expound on what you said later, as I have to run…. I was wondering if I’d chased you away since you’ve not been around as of late…glad to see thats not the case.
As for the changing themes, you caught me experimenting….I like the theme I have right now…but hate the colors…and since I’m not really much of a wordpress guru, I’m tryin to learn through tinkering.
-Clarke
December 14th, 2005 at 7:21
Learning through tinkering is the way to go. I purchased another URL so that I could do just that. I’ve learned some things, so, if you need any help, let me know.
August 16th, 2007 at 19:06
This discussion is very interesting. I was seeking out a Bible college to attend after I finish my A.A. and stumbled upon the Johnson Bible College.
At that moment doctrine and statements of faith became very important. I could not figure out what this college professed to believe other then the “Restoration Plea.” My first question was…is the restoration plea a form of doctrine in itself?? The next question was..why don’t they mention the Holy Spirit? Long story short… I have been searching up and down trying to find out where exactly the Johnson College stands on the Trinity…because that is an important issue… Anyway… so I have read several interesting articles by CoC members who pretty say that I am a member of an aposty church (I attend Calvary Chapel) because I listen to musical instruments… Other statements basically want unity…we all want unity; however, I don’t know how that happens when you are being called an apostate for clapping your hands during worship. (What about King David, called a man after God’s own heart… he danced and played music and is mentioned in the NT)
Anyway… I forgot what I was going to say about all of this other then….perhaps CoC should write up their doctrine because they very obviously have one about many things and get over those that take the whole context of the Bible into consideration…after all God did provide the entire Bible not just the NT.