MY MOTIVES IN WRITING THIS SERIES

   In response to a recent article in this series one individual responded that I had been judgmental and harsh in my approach. Was I? Not sure. I suppose that’s always possible – I’m just like anyone else in failing to see my own faults. However, being judgmental and harsh was never my objective. My purpose in writing these articles about the Restoration Plea has been 3-fold:


1. To remind.

  There are folks in our brotherhood who have tended to forget what made the Restoration Movement valuable. The Restoration Plea was not supposed to be about “us vs. them.” It had intended to challenge the religious people of their day to go back to the basics (restore what Christ set in motion in the first century) and build unity based on basic principles such as “No Creed But Christ, No Book But The Bible And No Law But Love.”

  But over the years, because of struggles inside and outside the brotherhood, many of our churches either built walls to keep outsiders out (to avoid impurity) or tried to tear down those walls in the vain hope of attaining unity with denominations by compromising our principles. 

  I am convinced that the principles I’m writing about in this series of posts are superior to any other way of looking at Scripture. Not because I or any member of the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches are superior to other believers in denominational churches, but because Christ is superior to any man-made creed, the Bible is superior to any man-made book of doctrine.
  And the Law of Love? I can love you and still disagree with you or - another way of saying it – I don’t have to agree with you to love you. These are amongst the principles I desire to remind people of.

 2. To challenge.

  To challenge people to rethink human rules and regulations that often guide the doctrine of many churches. There are lots of decent folk in denominational churches who have never thought of simply looking to the Bible to discover what God has to say. And this isn’t just a “denominational issue.” I recall preaching in one of our Restoration churches years ago and asking the congregation to turn to the Scripture I was preaching from. I waited. And I waited. And I waited. But I didn’t see any Bibles being opened, and I didn’t hear any pages being turned. No one got their Bible out because no one there had ever learned the importance of reading their Bibles on their own.

 3. To encourage.

 I’m convinced that the Restoration plea is a powerful and game-changing way of looking at God’s Word. And I’m convinced that the early church was organized just the way God wanted it – and that early church setup is far superior to any “improvements” religious people have made over the centuries. In fact, I’m so convinced of this, that I’ve determined that I must be aggressive but (hopefully) loving in presenting the Restoration plea to anyone who’ll listen.

   In the past, when it came to talking about Restoration Movement, I’ve been conflicted. I felt that if I spent too much time explaining the Restoration Plea I might risk exalting our brotherhood and sainting the founding fathers of our movement - and possibly placing our ideals and original leaders over Scripture and Jesus. So I rarely spoke about why we are the kind of church that we were. I mean, after all, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Raccoon John Smith, and the rest, had sound hermeneutical principles and great foundational ideas… but they didn’t die for me. So I’ve tended to be a bit cautious.

   But over the years, I’ve learned to carefully but firmly expound the ideals of our brotherhood (because I believe it is superior to anything man has created since) without enshrining the men who got the ball rolling for our brotherhood. And that is what this set of articles is all about.

  Therefore, my objective here has been to remind myself, as well as any part of our brotherhood who may read these posts, what our ideals are. Not that we are more righteous than others, but that there are basics in Scripture that can make us better Christians and can give us the potential to make our congregations more effective for Christ. 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW SHOULD YOU BE BAPTIZED?

   Long before “the prayer of salvation” and “asking Jesus into your heart” were introduced to the religious world in the 1800s, the big issue was:    Should a person be baptized by sprinkling or by immersion?   It was such a divisive issue that several denominations in Europe would drown those who preferred adult immersion over sprinkling of children. “You like water… we’ll give lots of water.”   But the question for honest students of Scripture isn’t whether religious leaders believe in immersion or sprinkling. The question is… what does the word “baptism” really mean?   WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?   In John 3:23 we read, " And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, BECAUSE THERE WAS MUCH WATER THERE: and they came, and were baptized ."   In Mark 1:9-10 , we read, "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway COMING UP OUT OF THE WATER, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like...
Read more

UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE OF CREEDS

  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 ...
Read more

CHRISTIANS ONLY

    If you were to ask some people if they were “Christians” they might reply “I’m a Methodist,” or “I’m a Baptist,” or “I’m a whatever.” Odd. You asked if they were Christians and they told what “flavor” they thought they were.   That’s one of the dangers of denominational names – the loyalty to a denominational brand that often outweighs a person’s loyalty to Christ. NO ONE should do this. And that’s why the Restoration Movement has pushed so hard on the concept that “ We’re not the only Christians, but we’re Christians only.” If we insist on being only Christians, it becomes harder to use a man-made name that divides us off from others. (See footnote)     Recently a friend said to me “you’re an Arminian.” In other words, he was stating that I believed in the teachings of a man named Jacobus Arminius (who maintained that men and women have a free will).   Now, while that’s probably true, I responded “No, I’m not an Arminian. I’m a Christian. Arminius...
Read more