Restoration Movement

  The “Restoration Movement” began with a conflict over who could be allowed to take of the Lord’s Supper. Many churches in the 18th and 19th century tried controlling their denominations with something called “closed communion.” Only members of a specific denomination, who agreed with that denomination's specific creeds and teachings, were allowed to partake of the “Lord’s Supper” with that group. Communion was “closed” to anyone outside the denomination.    The man who started all the fuss was named Thomas Campbell - a preacher for the “Old light, Anti-burgher, Seceder” Presbyterian church. Each of those titles (that prefaced Presbyterian) represented divisions within the Presbyterian church. For example, “Seceder” Presbyterians selected their own ministers, while “Anti-Seceder” Presbyterians had their ministers selected by a High-Church counsel.   Each division within the Presbyterian denomination maintained their purity of doctrine through “closed communion”,...

  The Lord’s Supper (or Communion) is the meal that the early Christians ate at their worship services. It was a simple meal – just unleavened bread (crackers) and a cup of juice (called the “fruit of the vine”) – and they took of it every Sunday.   But today, many churches offer communion only once a month or quarter or year. Some churches don’t even serve it on Sunday mornings – they’ll wait until Sunday night to make sure that only their members take part. I’ve even heard that some modern churches don’t want to have communion on Sundays because “it interrupts the flow of worship.”    By contrast, Restoration churches (like ours) offer communion at every service on Sunday, and it is the main focus of our worship. Why?  Well first, because that is what the early church did. In the Book of Acts 2:42, the early church met regularly to worship, and part of that worship was to “break bread” – a phrase they used for taking of the Lord’s supper together.   La...

  Years ago, I supply preached for a small country church that had about 35 in attendance. They weren’t part of our brotherhood, but they liked me and asked me to consider becoming their preacher. Since they weren’t part our brotherhood I asked to look at their by-laws to make sure there wasn’t anything I had to consider before saying "yes" to them.   They handed me a document roughly 10 pages in length and I took it home to read it over. Their by-laws seemed fairly normal (essentially what ours might look like) until I got to the back pages. And I swear to you, the last 2/3rds of their constitution consisted of their church’s “Creed.” Most of it was fairly common Bible doctrine, but there were parts of it that I felt were questionable and hard to justify. So when I met with their leadership the next week I told I’d want to change their constitution’s doctrinal statements if I became their preacher.   “Oh no” one of the sighed, “the last 3 preachers have wanted to change ...

  In response to my recent article on the danger of Creeds, one man replied that - when the Restoration movement declared “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” - this motto was “a mini creed itself.”   That’s a legitimate challenge because “Creed” simply means “I believe.”   Thus, anything a Church or Christian says they “believe” could justifiably be called a Creed… that is, if that was the only definition you used. Unfortunately, that’s not what denominations mean by their “Creeds.”      Strictly speaking, Creeds are the measuring sticks denominations use to determine whether or not you are a “Christian” (by their definition) and are acceptable within their religious group. That’s why back in the early 1800s, when Thomas Campbell offered communion to worshipers who weren’t part of the religious group he preached for, he was branded a heretic.   A few observations of why we reject creeds: 1.    ...

  My daddy used to say that “ the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship ” … and he was willing to sign up to be the dictator. There’s lots of folks who literally love to be the “dictator” or the person “in charge.” They’re convinced that if they were in control, then things would be done the right way - their way.     Down through history, the question of how the church should be structured - and who should be in charge - has been an ongoing struggle. Our brotherhood has come to believe that the Bible describes the 1st Century church as populated by independent congregations whose Elders were the pastors of each specific flock. We’ve come to believe that these congregations observed the authority of the Apostles but were otherwise “independently owned and operated” (as I like to say).     Over time, that began to change.    When emperor Constantine became the patron of the church of his day, he began to reward Christians wi...

  Who is “in charge” at church?   In America the people in charge are often those who make up the majority of the members in a congregation. Majority rule, or democracy, is often the guiding principle in many churches throughout the nation. In churches like that, the majority of the members determine what should happen in the congregation.   One man visited our worship service some time back and joked with me: “It must be tough having 150 bosses” (our average worship attendance was 150).   I smiled back and said “Oh, I don’t have 150 bosses. I only have ONE boss. But I do have 150 people whom I serve.”   Majority rule (or Democracy) is a sacred tenet of our American society , and it’s easy to understand why it has such a broad appeal to church members. Depending upon the church, “majority rule” is either the church polity (as with Congregationalist congregations) or is an underlying tool used by those who want to have “their way” in their congregation (by as...