Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 3:

Often the question is raised as to whether or not there is still value in the Restoration plea, a plea that has at its center two major elements:  1) Christian unity and 2) fidelity to the original church.  Perhaps the question is raised because denominational sectarianism has taken such a beating in the last 50 years, that there is seemingly less urgency for us to continue calling for Christians to accept one another or to work together; we now do this on a grand scale.  That said, I think there is still much work to do on the unity front.  Perhaps the question is raised because biblical primitivism – strict fidelity to the original church - just doesn’t seem in our time to be particularly meaningful, or effective, or full of value or even possible.  The conclusion is that other emphases would actually serve the church better.  Perhaps the question is raised because our plea is often viewed as itself being responsible for a great deal of denominational sectarianism, both because we have shortsightedly denied the denominational status of our Movement and its various streams and because we have been sectarian even while denying that we are a denomination. So, some think that not only is restoring the church to its original form not necessary, it is actually a hindrance in our age to the advance of the Kingdom and of the gospel.

Personally, I am not ready to give up on the Restoration Movement, a.k.a. the Stone-Campbell Movement, meaning in this context that I am not wanting to see our plea come to nothing among western Canadian churches affiliated with the Stone-Campbell Movement.  Even in an age in which denominational loyalty is perhaps lower than it has ever been, many Baptists think there are still good reasons to be Baptist.  Many Methodists think there is good reason to remain Methodist.  Many Roman Catholics defend the value of continuing to be RC.  Many Presbyterians remain in their fold.  It would appear that remaining committed to one’s own heritage does not automatically have to be jettisoned as an option, even if we are committed to Christian unity (as so many Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians are).  For us to think that there is something of value in still being committed to at least some of the things that have made us who we are is not an absurdity.  In fact, for me, remaining committed to many of the principles, values, and doctrinal positions of the Stone-Campbell Movement is of vital importance.   Let me list some.

 In our time I would hope that we would especially be committed to:

1)      The identification of freedom of the will as a theologically rich, necessary, biblical principle.  Religious determinism, especially in the subtle forms it takes in much of Reformed theology, was rejected by the formerly Presbyterian progenitors of our Movement, and for this I am grateful.  In an age when Reformed theology is often identified with orthodoxy, as if this, and only this, position is orthodox, there must be other faithful voices to counter this trend.  Twenty years ago I thought a more Arminian oriented position was winning the day, but things have changed a bit, in an unhelpful direction I would say.  I am glad we consider those with strict Reformed theologies our brothers and sisters, but I don’t find their theology to be particularly defensible, either biblically or intellectually.  I hope we remain committed to an Arminian perspective.

 

2)      Our sanctification.  Although we have been a bit anemic when it comes to our comprehension and emphasis on the Holy Spirit and His role in creating in us holiness, we have always defended the notion that faith without works is dead.  Christians should live better because they are in Christ.  Yet, when it comes to the need for sanctification, I am not so much thinking that Christians should be sinning less (they should, but that is not my real concern at just this point).  My concern is more that there is something necessary about us having a strong theological commitment to right living, a longing for holiness and Christlikeness, so that whether or not in our actual practice we miss the mark, at least there remains among us a commitment to uphold virtue.  For example, rather than overtly asserting our freedom to drink alcohol or to use the words “what the hell” in conversation (often I find the attitude that accompanies the presence of such things in someone’s life to be surprisingly immature), because we want to separate ourselves from restrictive moralism, I would rather that we continue to teach against drunkenness, to expect and teach a level of respectful, non-judgmental holiness, all the while recognizing the value that exists in Christian freedom.  So, we can without guilt drink alcohol, but the attitude with which one does so needs to be Christ-honouring, mature, with a sober mind, rather than with an immature flaunting of worldliness.  This is a different attitude than one present in the minds of some Christians and their theologies, when they apply the grace of God almost as a permission slip for acting in unholy ways.  We are to be transformed from one level of glory to another, Paul would say, living exemplary lives of holiness.  In this the Spirit wants to work cooperatively in transforming our lives.

3)      Our commitment to biblical, exegetical theology.  At times our biblical rationalism has not been as theologically fruitful as what we might hope.  We unfortunately can be atomistic “prooftexters” dependent upon induction and syllogistic reasoning.  Nonetheless, I am grateful for our commitment to the biblical text and for our desire to ground what we think, do, and say in Scripture.  This has always been a core identifying mark among us, not that it necessarily separates us from others, but it does speak to who we are.  I hope this never changes.

4)      An adherence to certain core biblical doctrines and practices.  The importance of believers’ baptism by immersion, communion each Sunday, autonomous churches, plurality of Elders, the priesthood of all believers, the simplicity of our worship – these are some of the beliefs and practices that for me are distinctly believed by us (at least in the way that we believe and practice them) and which should be maintained among us.  Do they have to look exactly the same in every one of our churches?  Definitely not.  Should an attitude of exclusivity and sectarianism accompany our beliefs and distinct practices?  No.  But we should recognize the great value that there is in so many of the things that make us who we are.  We have a rich tradition, not one to be undervalued or of which we should be ashamed.  There is as much legitimacy, if not more, in our distinctiveness as there is in the distinct traditions that identify our friends in other Christian fellowships.  They may recognize with more appreciation their tradition, and in some cases their traditions may seem more time-honoured, but our distinct practices are at least as biblically defensible as theirs, in my opinion, and as long as we can adequately defend our positions with graciousness and love, we need to believe them and practice them, being grateful for the richness of these beliefs and practices for our lives in Christ.

That’s all for this installment.  I would love to hear from others what they think concerning the value or vacuity of our Restoration plea.  In your opinion, what is there from the RM/S-CM to which we should cling?  What should we count unimportant?