Got this as a part of jesuspattern over at eGroups. Thought it would make for great discussion in this forum as well. To participate in the original discussions, visit Jesus as Restoration Pattern

-----------------------------------

Hello Cyber fellow travelers.

I (as are most of you) am part of a tradition which has held as a significant part of its self-identity the notion of committment to "restoring" the New Testament or "primitive" Christian church. We are not alone (Not in an X-File way) in this effort. Some thesis similarly underlies efforts/groups like the Apostolic Christian Church, many "pentecostal" groups, and even (in some form or another) para-Christian groups like LDS. From our own background, perhaps most centrally articulated by Campbell in his Christian Baptist writings or even The Christian System, our movement has been somewhat preoccupied with replicating the normative forms of church governance and most notably Christian worship practices--form and format. In contrast to some other 'restoration' efforts ours has tended toward emphasis (overemphasis) on forms and format rather than tenets of operation of the spirit, apostolic succession, or other aspects of the primitive church.

Here at the dawn of the 21st century, I suppose it is most appropriate to ponder the general question - "Is restorationism" as a concept or philosophy still a vaild pursuit? Furthermore, It might be useful to attempt to define what restoration *should* mean - rather than simply rehash what it *has* meant to various constituencies.

1. Are the doctrines, practices, and beliefs of the primitive Christian Church in any sense normative for Christians in the 21st century? If so, how and to what boundaries?

2. As our historical knowledge of the practices and habits of the first/second century Christians grows, what relationship (if any) ought such knowledge exist with the canon of NT scripture which we hold inspired of God?

3. Is a principle or philosophy of restorationism consistent with a desire for discovery of "Essentials" for Christian doctrines and practices?

Finally, I sit here reflecting on what we have wrought. The bookshelf where I am typing this first comment is lined with texts such as "Redigging the old well, Walking the old paths, and First Century Christianity for a 20th century world." I can only imagine how many other books, tracts, and sermons on the notion of proclaiming a primitive church "Pattern" must exist on the shelves and file cabinets of our people. I suppose I am at the point where I am compelled to suggest that perhaps a lot of this forework has not solved many of our challenges. Is an investigation as I have proposed in this effort doomed to a similar fate?

On the other hand, the issues I am raising certainly have great precendent among our peoples. Is seems quite legitimate and consistent to offer my own reply to the question of what was the "pattern" of the early primitive Christian Church. After participating in Ron Highfield's excellent class on "The Distinctives of the Churches of Christ" and coupled with my own investigation of first century Christianity as well as a continuing study of the scripture texts themselves, it occurred to me...perhaps the early church indeed had a pattern to govern their faith and practice - and my Objections to patternism were not so much to the principle -but the application!. Perhaps the thesis that the early church followed a pattern has more validity than I have allowed -only that the pattern that the early church uniformly and universally (?) recognized was Jesus the Christ as LORD.

1. Did the early Church turn to the stories about, the teachings recorded, and the nature of a resurrected LORD to guide their faith, practices, and doctrine, and more specifically on which they modeled their daily lives? 2. Is such a thesis "evidenced" in the NT writings and confirmed in the extra-textual historical sources of the first, second, and third centuries? 3. If so, would such a committment to the same "pattern" be normative for Churches in all subsequent centuries, including the 21st?

thanks,

Bob Chandler Jan. 6, 2000

------------------------------------------------------

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Answers

Mark....

To be honest, I've read Bob's letter through twice now and cannot for the life of me understand what he is getting at. Maybe you can break it down better.

That being said, let me say this. The question he poses, i.e., "Is restorationism still valid?" is not new to Jan. 6 of 2000 and it is not unique to Brother Chandler.

It has become quite common place in recent years to suggest that the Restoration movement was a mistake and that it should have never happened. In fact, a R. History textbook common in a number of our Bible colleges operates on that thesis.

It has become common place to suggest that in the pursuit of truth, the thrill is always in the hunt and never in the kill. In other words....what right do we have to claim....."We are right."

It has become quite common place in our society to criticize anyone who claims that there is "one truth" and that it can be known thereby, by the process of elimination, declaring all other proclamations as false.

A hearty round of applause at major gathering awaits the speaker who says, "We need to get off our baptism bandwagon and realize that all those who confess the name of Jesus are our brothers."

And a a hearty round of declaring one a Pharisee awaits the person who claims that we in the Christian church are right...we are different....and let the chips fall where they lay.

I would suggest that is exactly why our movement grew in the beginning. We had the truth....we were proud of it....we were proud to say we are different from denominationalism....and we rejoiced in that.

Now....many of our "big wigs" spend more time battling the disease of the "be like 'ems" evidenced by all the time they spend saying to the denominations...."See....we're just like you....can we play??"

Yes the Restoration plea is still valid. And to those with the courage and fortitude to pursue it in the midst of opposition, mostly from their "brethren"....it will produce the pure church that was established in 33 A.D.

Yep Mark.....it's still valid and much needed.....maybe even more than in the 18th century.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Mark Wisniewski.....GREAT POST!!!

D.Lee....I can't disagree with you, nor do I have a desire...however, I think it is a shame, and I think we err greatly if we do not teach our people the history of those who in the past struggled to restore the church of the New Testament.

I pride myself on the fact that in the four churches I have served as the preacher.....I would bet 75% of the members could give a decent response if asked who Alexander Campbell was and what he contributed to the Restoration movement.

If we don't know our history.....we are destined to make the same mistakes of the past.

In my current congregation, there is a picture of the "Big Four" in the fellowship hall...i.e., A. Campbell, T. Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton Stone.

Before I came, most people thought they were past presidents of the U.S.!!! Honest.

Now they know.....they appreciate.....and they have a sense of pride....and a sense of honor to carry on that tradition.

I believe in the Restoration movement.....BECAUSE AND ONLY BECAUSE......it is biblical.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Duane.....

You said....."The only reason studying what Campbell and Stone did is valuable today is because what "they were doing" is what we need to be doing....going back to the Jerusalem gospel." (end of quote).

Isn't that what I said???

I might also point out...."Restorationism" is a principle.....not a doctrine. Therefore, it is healthy, and good, to study those who developed the principle.

D.Lee....I think in your particular situation.....you are absolutely correct in doing what you do.

I believe what I speak to has more to do with established congregations where people stay around quite a bit longer.

I agree with your methodology.

By the way Duane....I love all women.....especially in high heels. :O)

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Nate.....

Your last paragraph sums up the difference between you and me.

You said, in essence..."They have done their job....now let's move on."

No....they did not do their job....they only began it.

The "principle" of Restorationism is on going. We continue to strive to restore the church of the 1st century. Campbell....et. al...were wrong about a number of things. But in all honesty....they died before they had a chance to work it all out.

Also....the battlefield for most of the early Rest. leaders was in the arena of soteriology. They never had time to completely work out all the other facets of worship and congregational life.

Which....now that I think about it....may be what Mark is getting to in his question (although I'm not sure).

I am passionate in my defense of the Rest. Movement only because the number that spends time "apologizing" for it is increasing on a daily basis.

Your question about Campbell verses Onesimus to me is a straw man and a smoke screen. It presupposes one to the neglect of the other....which does not have to be the case. To me it was the equivalent of the question...."Have you ever beat your wife?"

Restorationism is a principle that should guide us in the same way sound hermeneutics should guide us.

On a personal note Nate....there was no reason for you to apologize. Not once do you carry on an "Ad hominem."

I wish people would quit being so "touchy, feely."

This is a forum designed for the battle of ideas.

Truth prevails on its own merits......not the ability or lack thereof of any of us to defend it.

I can honesty say that there is not one person (not one) on this forum who has personally offended me.

I've always operated by the principle...."If you can't keep up with the big dogs....stay on the porch."

And Nate....I am a professor....sooooo.....maybe I do get a little defensive about the study of any history. ha!!!!

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Nate....

I never...ever....said I "preached" about Campbell, et. al. That is a clear misrepresentation of what I ever said.

I have taught "mini-courses"....4-6 Wed. nights of Restoration History done via doing biographical sketches of the men and analyzing from a biblical perspective what they did.

Personally, I don't know how one could study Rest. History without studying the Bible to make sure those men were on the right track. Do you??

Also....some of the occurences of the Rest. Movement provide wonderful illustrative material for preaching. Three quick examples....

1) How could you not speak of the restorationism of Nehemiah and pass up the opportunity to speak of the Restoration movement?

2) How could you preach about good king Josiah and the discovery of "the lost book" and the restoration of the true worship of Yahweh....and not at least allude to the Restoration movement???

3) How could one preach about the proper candidate for baptism as opposed to infant baptism and not mention the time Raccoon John Smith forceably carried a Methodist minister down into the water to immerse him against his will??

Again Nate....you keep wanting to presuppose one to the exclusion of the other and I don't know for the life of me why you feel the need to do this.

In my preaching and teaching I have mentioned the great Polycarp and his day in the arena (who hasn't)?? I have mentioned such people as Justin Martyr, et. al.

But that was not the thread....the thread was specifically concerning the Rest. Movement.

By the way....Cane Ridge was not the beginning of the Rest. Movement. It was simly one of the "influences" that later got it under way. Little historical technicality.

And just for the record.....I'm in my fourth pulpit. At two of my last three churches.....I preached through the entire Bible....O.T. and N.T. Scott Sheridan and others can vouch for that. He would also probably vouch for the fact that my congregations have tended to be some of the most biblically and historically knowledeable because of my biblical and historical emphasis. In my last church....I preached through the Bible 1 1/2 times. In both of my last churches.....a total of 3 elders have gone on to Bible college and are now in the ministry.

Again....I only point this out because.....it's not an either/or.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Nate....

Again.....no apology necessary....absolutely none.

Thank you as well for the intellectual excercise.

Now, or in the future, do not mistake my passion.....for disrespect.

Your brother,

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Mark,

Not only is the Restoration plea valid in the year 2000, it is vital if the Church of Jesus Christ is to survive.

I say this because Restoration is not a new concept today, nor was it a new concept back in the 18th Century as we often think. The restoration of church doctrines and ideas did not begin with the Campbell-Stone Movement, but back in the 1st Century church.

Go back and read a few passages from the New Testament and you can see what I refer to as both Apostles and early church leaders admonished those back then to return to what was proper doctrine.

The entire book of Hebrews was written to convince those who had left the faith because of societal pressures to turn back to the Christianity that had at one time been delivered to them.

Apparently those in the Galatian churches had been giving up the Christianity that was first preached to them which lead Paul to write "even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we HAVE preached to you, let him be accursed"(Gal 1:8). They were being lead astray by the false ideas of the Judiazers and Paul was trying to Restore them back to the original Christianity they were once taught.

Such is the same reason that lead Jude to appeal to 1st Century Christians to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

If we do not continue to strive to preserve and return to that faith which was once delivered, it will eventually be lost - lending creedence to Jesus' question in Luke 18:8 "when the Son of Man comes, will He find THE FAITH on the earth".

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Essentially, I agree that restoration is relevant for today, and even agree with the reasons stated above. Where I would disagree is if one is saying (which does not seem to be the case here) a person must have a working knowledge of The Restoration Movement.

There seems to be an idea that salvation comes through The Restoration Movement, or at the very least one must understand the Stone/Campbell movement or that one is in danger of apostasy.

I myself know little of this movement. I attend an assembly where probably a good 85-95% of the people have not heard of this movement. We are being taught to measure EVERYTHING by one ruler, that ruler being the word of God. About 95-98% of the congregation is made up of people who have come out from denominations (myself included). This is not being accomplished by teaching the Restoration Movement. It is accomplished by pointing to that God breathed word every time a subject is studied, a question is asked, there is controversy, or a problem occurs.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Give her a break Danny... She thinks like that because she is a woman. :) Seriously folks, Danny's first response had echoes of a late professor we shared, Dr. Roger Chambers. Permit me to share some of his thoughts, cut-n-pasted from a previous post in this forum, Doctrinal trends in the Restoration Movement. First, a quote from his introduction, then a quote from his conclusion:

The Restoration Movement is alive. Hundreds of intelligent, faithful leaders preserve and preach the New Testament Christianity. While nothing could be clearer than that our outfit needs revival (when has that not been true of the Church?), it is not a given that we cry out for redefinition. I don't trust these fellows who, of late, have been reading over the grave of the brotherhood. I fear they want the movement certified dead so they can apply for the commission to resurrect it to their own vision. We may have lost our nerve; we have not lost our reason for being. And the preacher who has little or no experience in strong doctrine has no right to declare that the Restoration Movement isn't working and call for a new plan.

Conclusion: Where do we go from here? First, we rejoice in all that is healthy and vigorous about our movement. Despite the negative trends, much is well with our soul. Second, we resist the temptation to seek safety in a sterile conservativism that idolizes the 19th century. Third, we equally refuse to continue the trends toward a sterile liberalism that panders to changing public moods. Fourth, we regain our nerve. The Old Jerusalem Gospel will produce a dynamic church for ourselves and for our children if we but trust the Word enough to learn it and preach it. This is not the time-- never was--to blink when confronted by the modern doctrinal dog-and -pony show. It's time to trust, and contend earnestly for, the faith once delivered. History is not a juggernaut that rolls over and devours us no matter what. God pays us the intolerable compliment of taking us seriously enough to make it so that what we do--or do not do-- makes a difference in history, and in eternity.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

And by the way, I agree with D.Lee Muse. Sure, we must learn from our history.... 1st Century History!

And this from a guy like me who is a real restoration movement history buff (fanatic!)

I wonder if the "pioneers" we venerate, Campbell and company, were encouraging their congregations to study the history of restoration attempts 100 years prior? I doubt it.

The only reason studying what Campbell and Stone did is valuable today is because "what they were doing" is what we need to be doing...going back to the Jerusalem Gospel.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

Danny,

I can understand what you sayIf we dont know our historywe are destined to make the same mistakes of the past. I too think it a good idea to teach people the history of those who in the past struggled to restore the church of the New Testament. Maybe here at Christs Mission Church, we are in a unique situation. You see, the majority of the congregation is military. We have them for such a short time, an average of anywhere from a few weeks to three years. It is a constant turn over. The majority of time and effort is spent in teaching basic doctrine, evangelism, ministry, stewardship, and even morality before the family is transferred. Here we have a very small core of stable civilians who are permanent to the area. Usually by the time a family is well grounded in basic biblical principles Uncle Sam says it is time for them to move on. As they leave, new ones come in to teach. So we start the cycle all over again. There seems to be little time to teach extra-biblical things.

-- Anonymous, January 10, 2000

I think the point of Bob Chandler's questions are being missed here, and I think it may be because some people have only read the summary question, not the actual letter of Bob (Danny being the exception, apparently). Can we try again? Looking again, I probably chose a poor summary/subject line.

Let me rework Chandler's note which I "forwarded" to this forum, at the same time cutting down to the meat of it, as I see it:

------

Our movement [the Restoration movement] has been somewhat preoccupied with replicating the normative forms of church governance and most notably Christian worship practices--form and format. In contrast to some other 'restoration' efforts ours has tended toward what might be considered an overemphasis on forms and format rather than tenets of operation of the spirit, apostolic succession, or other aspects of the primitive church.

In considering if the restoration movement as a concept is valid, it might be useful to attempt to define what restoration *should* mean - rather than simply rehash what it *has* meant to various constituencies. To that end, we must ask:

1. Are the doctrines, practices, and beliefs of the primitive Christian Church in any sense normative for Christians in the 21st century? If so, how and to what boundaries?

2. As our historical knowledge of the practices and habits of the first/second century Christians grows, what relationship (if any) ought such knowledge exist with the canon of NT scripture which we hold inspired of God?

3. Is a principle or philosophy of restorationism consistent with a desire for discovery of "Essentials" for Christian doctrines and practices?

It seems (if I am reading him correctly) to Bob Chandler that maybe we are following the *wrong* pattern. That is, we have been following the form and the format of the primitive church, but the pattern shouldn't be the forms and formats but rather their principles, what motivated them. As he puts it:

1. Did the early Church turn to the stories about, the teachings recorded, and the nature of a resurrected LORD to guide their faith, practices, and doctrine, and more specifically on which they modeled their daily lives?

2. Is such a thesis "evidenced" in the NT writings and confirmed in the extra-textual historical sources of the first, second, and third centuries?

3. If so, would such a committment to the same "pattern" be normative for Churches in all subsequent centuries, including the 21st?

As for me, I think we have to consider two possible scenarios:

ONE: Jesus leaves the earth, having shown his disciples how to live, instructions on how to live and guidelines on how to treat each other. He entrusts the creation of the church to the Holy Spirit and the apostles He leaves behind. In Jerusalem they create a church that meets daily, in the outer provinces some only meet once per week. In Jerusalem they meet at the temple, in some other cities they meet in the Jewish synagoges, other places they meet in people's homes. Some places they break bread daily, others only on the first day of the week. Some places they have some paid "church staff", others members share the duties. Each community the gospel is spread, only the simplest of directions are left on the actual structure of the church (say the purposes and some comments on leadership) and the members there work with the Holy Spirit to form a style to fit that region. Future generations and new regions of the world are left to form things however it might fit their culture, as long as they engage with God through prayer and study about how to do it and they adhere to a handful of principles. Examples are retained in the Bible in order to help future generations understand the principles -- but never given as commands in order to allow each generation to express itself to God in its own style and to reach its own generation in a way that its own generation can understand.

TWO: Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit give a detail blueprint of the church to the early church fathers, but see to it that the blueprint is hidden in examples in the Bible so future generations can argue about what the pattern is. So what if His people end up doing things in the assemblies that cause people of the world to say "they are out of their mind" (see 1 Cor 14:23) for no other reason than "it's in the pattern!".

So, are we to restore the first century church in our time, or are we to restore first century principles to our time, i.e., bring the first century church to our times. If we are to restore the first century church, which one? Will our Jewish friends let us borrow their buildings on Sundays?

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Mark,

I'm not convinced that our "Jewish friends" will let us "Borrow" their Synagogs, but they might rent to us! :-D

Danny,

I sense amibiguity in what you are saying between your last two posts.

It sounds to me like you are saying that Campbell/Stone/Scott/Campbell are more important Characters in Christian History than Christians who lived in the first century. because they contributed more to the movement. You said that...

"I pride myself on the fact that in the four churches I have served as the preacher.....I would bet 75% of the members could give a decent response if asked who Alexander Campbell was and what he contributed to the Restoration movement."

Is the same true of other names we can actually find in the Bible? What of Onesimus and what he contributed? Of those 75% could they discribe who all the writers of the New Testement are...where they lived, how they died, what was their personality like, what are they known for contributing? How about how the NT was Canonized? Are these not MORE important than "Restoration History?"

Please don't get me wrong... I still think that the Restoration PLEA is a valid thing today and for always... but aren't we denominationalizing ourselves when we begin to worship Stone or Campbell or Russell or Gabbard simply because they had some decent things to say about Christianity?

Then you said...

"I might also point out...."Restorationism" is a principle.....not a doctrine."

Huh? Wait, it sounds to me like you preach it like a doctrine... I'm confused!

I am thankful for the Restoration Movement and what they've done to focus our attention back to 1st Century Christianity... but now they've done their job.... I'm focused... Let's just preach Jesus and forget about...uh, what was his name?

Danny, Please understand that I am a Bible student and not a learned professor... so if I've made some mistake in my assumptions, please forgive me.

In HIM,

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

How about following the example of Paul?

(Acts 28:31 KJV) "Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."

It appears Paul Preached the Kingdom of God first and "those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ."

(James 1:26 KJV) "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain."

(James 1:27 KJV) "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

I am glad I re-read the origional post because I see that Mark, or Bob, did not necessarily indicate, only the "Restoration Movement", but "Restorationism". I was reminded by another writer that "Restoration Plea" might be the better concept. I believe that the concept is still valid and would encourage all to know the history of "The" Restoration Movement and as well as other histories of the ages where a return to the ancient paths were heralded. Was there not a Restoration movement in Russia shortly before the Restoration Movement in Europe and North America? Has there not been "Restorationist" in parts of Africa and South America? Many of these movements were not aware of the the Restoration Movement of the Campbell/Stone groups. Is it not true that some of the the other efforts of ancient history could be termed Restorationism and never have been familiar with Restoration Movement of the 1800's I am personally very much a kin to the Restoration Movement being of English/Irish descent, but I am also aware of concept to lead people back to the Bible and God, as a universal and timeless concept. That is where I think the Restorationist should go in this discussion. In his service, Dennisd

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

I know Bob Chandler. In fact, he is one of my favorite people. He is extremely bright and teaches at Pepperdine University. I signed up for his list because I enjoy reading from him. However, I would like to say he and I disagree strongly on some things: such as institutionalism and formal worship. He goes back to the O.T. for some of his thinking. It is my beliefe that the since we are under Christ all of the O.T. should be left behind when it comes to their practices.

He and I have discussed the foramality (I think that was the subject) and he goes to the synagogue for an example of Paul's worship...etc.

Bob, if you are reading this I pray I have not misrepresented your thinking.

Nelta

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Ack! I essentially said what? Wait, I can see how I communicated that. Let me try again...

I am thankful for Campbells, Stone, Scott and etc. for bringing the focus to restoring 1st century Christianity. NO, WE ARE NOT FINISHED, (perhaps never will be by the looks of it) BUT, it looks like some Christians are attempting to RESTORE the RESTORATION MOVEMENT, rather than 1st century Christianity.

History IS important, but not MOST important. I LIKE history! (My favorite subject in school) We(Restoration)Christians love to study ACTS as if it were the most important book in the Bible...and isn't that a History book? BUT if we talk about Barton Stone like the LDS talk about Joseph Smith, are we not guilty of the same sin?

We point to the Cain-Ridge Revivals like they were the beginning of Christianity as we know it... and forget about the Justin Martyrs. We talk more about what we're against instead of what we are for. We herald the Restoration Movement like it was the 2nd coming of Christ! It's not just TRUTH we are preaching, but TRUTH (with an attitude!) What happened to "No Book but the Bible"? I fail to see the Cain- Ridge Revivals located anywhere in my NIV.

YES! The PLEA is still a worthy cause... but the CAUSE is CHRIST! I do not apologize for the Restoration Movement, I embrace it! They are my brothers in Christ and I thank God for them! But I refuse to be of Apollos, or of Peter or Paul. I follow Christ (un-divided)!

("Restorationism is a principle that should guide us in the same way sound hermeneutics should guide us.") A Hearty AMEN!

I do presuppose that you are spending less time on the scriptures if you are preaching about Stone/Campbell. Am I wrong in that assumption if out of your last 4 congregations up to 75% can "give a decent response if asked who Alexander Campbell was and what he contributed to the Restoration movement."?

I think that we are on the same page Danny, but differ in opinion concerning the importance of role of Campbell, Stone, Campbell and Scott play in the grand scheme of things. I thank them, (my brothers in Christ) for what they have done. but I refuse to kneel and worship them... or Russell, OR Smith, OR Merold, OR Gabbard... even though all are making great strides for the Cause!

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000

Danny,

My apologies for misrepresenting you. Please forgive me.

Just for the record... I do not disagree with any of your last statements. :-D

Thank you for sharpening me brother. I don't even have to pay tuition at F.C.C. for this stuff! heh heh heh

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 11, 2000