The American restoration movement is a tradition that began in the 18th and 19th Centuries as a sort-of second reformation. Its basic premise is a critique: it maintains that denominational distinctions cause divisions between Christians, and that unity among believers is only possible if churches follow the pattern of Christianity that was practiced in the New Testament. Restorationists contend that people fell away from the original practices of the church when they set up denominational systems and creeds, and that a return to the pattern laid out in the New Testament is the only way to create unity among Christians.
Three major faith traditions are a part of this movement: (1) the Churches of Christ (of which I am a member), (2) the Disciples of Christ, and (3) the First Christian Churches. The Disciples church represents a more theologically liberal version of the movement. The principle difference between the Churches of Christ and the First Christian churches is that the former do not use musical instruments, having rejected them as not being a part of the pattern that was established in the New Testament.
As a member of the churches of Christ, I used to be – but am no longer – a restorationist. Why the change?
1. The call for ecumenical theology and practice is no longer unique. When the restoration movement originated, denominations tended to make claims of superiority over other denominations. Such claims are much less widespread, now – even among fundamentalists. Many Christians are coming to recognize that there is a larger church that transcends the denominations and they are coming to work together, where possible. Different creeds and practices are less and less a barrier to unity. In that sense, the “message” of the restoration movement is no longer unique.
2. New Testament churches were far from perfect. Restorationism is based on the idea that the church functioned in a perfect, pristine state after it was first created (and before it was tainted by denominational creeds). But, when it comes to the early church, the New Testament doesn’t portray a picture of perfection. There was in-fighting over worship, disagreement over the role of women, bickering about the procedures for benevolence, contention over doctrine, accusations that leaders were more interested in power and money than ministry, and disagreement about what people had to do to qualify for membership. In short, they looked just like 21st Century churches. Worse yet, absolute answers to many of their disputes are often in short supply, even in Paul’s epistles. With so many flaws imbedded in First Century churches, it is difficult to believe that we should look to them for an appropriate pattern to inform our own practices.
3. Restorationism leaves inadequate room for growth. Think about Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of God. Most of them have to do with growth. They involve mustard seeds, wheat, vineyards. God’s kingdom is dynamic, evolving, organic. I am no longer convinced that – just because the Church looked a certain way in 75 AD – it should still look that way in 2007. In fact, Jesus’ own teachings suggest that the church should be anything BUT a static institution, unchanging in its beliefs and practices.
4. Restorationism leaves inadequate space for the work of God’s Spirit. Change might be dangerous if we had no guidance. But scripture teaches that God’s spirit will live among the Church and guide it. Why would that be necessary if the church were a static, unchanging institution? Restorationism can cause Christians to become too reliant on old patterns, and – at the same time – inadequately reliant on the movement of God’s spirit in the world.
5. Arrogance. Not all restorationists believe that they are the only ones going to heaven or that they are a part of the only true Church. However, it tends to lead to a mentality which says that restorationists do things right and everyone else does them wrong. Ironically, this tends to create even more disunity, particularly in an age where ecumenical movements are so widespread.
I am, of course, not the only person who is talking about these issues. Far from it. I know a number of people who are members of the Churches of Christ who hold very similar ideas. Members of our churches often criticize viewpoints of this nature by asking something like this: Why, if you are no longer committed to these principles, do you continue to belong to a restorationist community?
The question is fair and – to be blunt – even valid, and I’m hoping to explore it in a future post.
December 26, 2007 at 10:15 pm |
matt,
i feel you. i was born and raised in the movement. it’s funny, when you listed the problems with the so-called new testament church, i recognized the flaws of every congregation of which i’ve been a member. but i’m still here, and you’re still here; looking forward to hearing your reasons.
i wanna add two points (or perhaps just two pieces of jargon) to the discussion. they’re both hermeneutical problems. first, the coC branch of restorationism, like much of christendom, has always priveleged the pauline “canon within the canon.” i really wish we’d privelege the gospels, and allow Jesus to shape our reading of paul, and not the other way around.
second, the coC has an enlightenment-driven, rulebook hermeneutic which leads to the arrogance and stifling environment you describe above. i really wish zondervan would start including nt wright’s “how can the bible be authoritative?” as an uninspired, noncanonical, but absolutely helpful appendix to every bible they ship.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
December 27, 2007 at 12:17 am |
This reminds me of a conversation you and I had oh, about 20 years ago, at the end of which you asked me something like, “So the Restoration plea pretty much means nothing to you, does it?” The Restoration Movement means a lot to me, but like you, I’m no longer enamored of the “Restoration plea.” Restorationism in the Stone-Campbell tradition is actually self-referentially incoherent, since you cannot derive either restorationism or biblicism from the first-century church, which of course had no primitive Christianity to “restore” nor any New Testament to follow biblicistically. Anyway, I’m looking forward to your answer to the question with which you closed the above post, and my perhaps offer my own thereafter.
January 3, 2008 at 7:48 am |
I would say that the restoration movement of the early nineteenth century cut themselves off from their (imperfect) christian heritage. It seems to me like that restorationism is saying that after the last Apostle died the golden age of Christianity ended and a spiritual dark age came upon the church, until the reformation when things spiritually improved, but that the reformation fell short of restoring the church to it’s pristine glory of the Apostolic age. Then in America with the restoration movement ot the 1800s the Church was restored; that Apostolic practice and doctrine had been rediscovered. However the restorationist view of the Church leaves one without a Christian Heritage before the 1800s and it also implies that Christ and Holy Spirit did basically nothing significant with His people till the 19th century. And it doesn’t fit with the Church’s scriptural image of a living, growing body (organism).
For example I would trace my spiritual heritage back through Spurgeon and Carey, Whitefield, Edwards, Bunyan, Cromwell, Owen, Knox, Calvin , Luther, Tyndale, Hus, Wyclife, Waldo, Anselm, Gottschalk, Augustine, Ireneaus, the Apostles, the old testament saints.
My question to you is this. “Where was your church before the Churches of Christ was founded?”
Also Christ founded the Church through the Apostles and it has been growing both in maturity and in expansion since those early days. There never was such a thing as a “pristine” church. Would you want your church to have the bickering of the Corinthians or to be easily bewitched as the galstgians were?
So here are some thoughts and views to digest. (Don’t give up on sola scriptura.)
Cheers Ian R
January 3, 2008 at 7:50 am |
p.s I used to belong to Churches of Christ in Australia. This was where i learnt restorationism.
January 3, 2008 at 1:34 pm |
Restoration movement churches should NOT follow the pattern of 1st century churches. As you aptly noted, they were full of problems. What should be followed is the apostle’s doctrine or instruction that came about as a response to those problems. Luckily, God ensured that those instructions were preserved for us to learn from.
-jm
January 4, 2008 at 10:50 pm |
Thanks, all for the comments. I’m constantly amazed at the way I can post a few ideas and generate a really good conversation – often with people I wouldn’t otherwise know – through this medium.
I’m especially interested in what John said about the apostle’s creed. Been thinking about that a lot lately.
And…Chris: I guess my thinking has changed a BIT since college, eh? Thanks for being patient with me while I’ve been trying to catch up.