The Restoration Mind . . .

REFORMATION IS RESTORATION

It was not mere happenstance that Alexander Campbell used the terms reformation and restoration inter-changeably. Nor was it only accidental that the followers of the Campbell movement of a century ago were hailed by their neighbors as reformers. Our pioneers saw their labors as a reformation effort, part and parcel of the work begun by Martin Luther. It was a matter of taking up where Luther left off.

The restoration mind is the reformation mind, and vice versa, for to restore man to God is to reform both his life and his religious institutions. In this series we have defined restoration as a return to the original character and purpose of the creator, whether we speak of a painting, a car, or of man. This involves reformation, which we may define as a fundamental change or transformation. And we are talking about individual lives, for reformation and restoration are realized only on that basis. Institutions are not transformed as such, but only as individuals who make up that institution are changed. Men are restored to God, recreated into the image that God intended, through a reformation of their lives.

This has all along been the cry of God’s prophets. “Cease to do evil and learn to do right, was Isaiah’s reformation theme, while “Come back to me, apostate children” was the cry of Jeremiah. “Come, let us return to the Lord” was the plea of Hosea, while Amos could speak of the restoration of David’s fallen house. John the Baptist came with a message of repentance, insisting that the kingdom of heaven has to do with transformed lives. Jesus also proclaimed “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” They all related the idea of a restoration of the fortunes of Israel to the concept of the transformation of individual lives.

The reformed person is one who has been renewed by the Spirit of God, and he is therefore restored to God. If a restoration movement has any notion other than restoring man to God, it is all amiss. But the restorationist believes that changed lives means a transformation of those institutions through which man expresses his devotion to God, the home and the church in particular. We should oppose any restoration effort that ignores the authenticity of the church or its ordinances.

Among our own Churches of Christ, where there is praiseworthy concern for the recovery of the significance of the individual, there is the danger that the concept of the church as the body of Christ will lose much of its historic and scriptural meaning. The church at large has been through this experience again and again. Liberalism was once willing to see the church as little more than a sociological phenomenon, being as averse to anything supernatural as it was. Fundamentalism moved to the other extreme, conceiving the church as everything from “Christian fellowships” to “gospel halls,” and largely ignoring the great historic institutions that have made the church the body of Christ. Liberalism neglected to see the church as the body of Christ, while Fundamentalism failed to appreciate the church as the Body of Christ.

It is this that alarms me about our own “house church” movement, however much I appreciate the concerns that motivate it. The “Spirit movement” which often goes with it is equally alarming. Such efforts can actually obstruct restoration and reformation in that they encourage a disengagement from the very institutions that so badly need transformation. It is the same fallacy committed by those physicians who want to reform medical practices, but who in their enthusiasm divorce themselves from the American Medical Association and the general hospitals and go out and do their thing in separate clinics. Reformations take place from within. House churches are fine so long as they are supplementary to institutional activities, for in this way they constitute a friendly underground that can bring about the right kind of influence for change in the status quo.

But house churches too often displace the organized body of Christ, with its adherents almost completely separated from their home congregations. It tends to ignore the place that God has given to organization in the congregation, and “housekeeping for the Lord” is largely a matter of the whim of the one who starts the house church. It is therefore something less than the body of Christ in assembly, and it is not likely to help in the reformation of the established church.

This is a conservative view toward the established forms of religion. It is to say that regardless of how ineffective and irrelevant the church of today may be in its institutional forms, it is nevertheless the body of Christ. Its long history and its institutions, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper, have meaning, and we should value what truths are preserved in its forms. And we should begin in our congregations, not away from them, the work of reformation that will restore God’s people to his original intention for the body of Christ. If mini-meetings and house churches remain within the context of the body of Christ in any given locality, and do not usurp the functions of that body, such as serving the Supper (which I see as a corporate act of saints in assembly), then they can be a blessing to the restoration-reformation movement. This is why in my own mini-meetings, which have the aura of the underground, I always respect the integrity of the local assembly. Whether or not I am called on to take any part or however bad I may think the situation is, I make it a point to be present and join in the services. I would be the first to object to any move to make a mini-meeting a “mini-church” that would assume the corporate function of the body of Christ.

The body of Christ is not only a fellowship of believers, but also a social institution within a culture, organized by heaven’s edict, with its elders and deacons, and equipped both to edify and discipline its members. And such an institution is in constant need of renewal and reformation, and it can be renewed, however long it may take. It is not a question of whether the church is completely restored to God’s original intention for it, for that probably never occurs. What is important is that it is a reforming church, growing toward what it ought to be, changing and being renewed.

The restoration mind is therefore a conservative mind, honoring the contributions of history and preserving the ground fought for and won. But it is also a patient mind, realizing that the most valued things in life do not come quickly or easily. It learns to be thankful for minor victories and slight changes for the better. It seeks the warmth of a slow-burning back log rather than the intense heat of a brush fire that soon burns out, leaving one cold and disappointed. It is satisfied with conversion, and does not demand over-conversion.

The restorationist rejoices in the person and work of the Holy Spirit, but he does not suppose that the Spirit was born yesterday. He has been at work in the body of Christ all these years, however stifled his efforts. He has never slumbered or slept nor taken vacations. He claims his victories in his own way, and he gets his work done, though not always as sensationally as we might expect.

The restorationist is a reformer in that he believes that men and institutions can be changed. He is not a mere critic or a calamity howler. He moves to the inside and works for change from within, for he believes in what already exists. He simply wants to change what is wrong and restore what is lacking. He doesn’t leave, for he realizes that the changes that really matter are those wrought by those who care enough to stay, those content with bit-by-bit victories.

Such was the attitude of Jesus in the letter to Sardis. The letter was addressed “To the angel of the church at Sardis.” It was indeed the body of Christ at Sardis, not splintered into a bunch of “loyal churches.” The picture was not good, to be sure, for the letter was a command to repent. But neither was it all bad. Reference is made to “what is left,” and there were some who walked with Jesus in white. Jesus was working for reform from within. He did not tell the faithful ones to leave and start a loyal congregation. They rather found themselves in a church that was so well nigh dead that the Lord wrote to them urging that they “Wake up!” Jesus was not satisfied with anything they were doing. But some were faithful to him. He was willing to start there, and not out of there. The Holy Spirit never instructs any saint to leave the body of Christ where he is a member. He rather teaches that “they who separate themselves are sensual”

We make good reformers and restorers when we learn the simple lesson that once we place ourselves at God’s disposal he can use us gloriously, if not sensationally, wherever we are. But it will be in his way, not our way. That may also be simple, but it is a lesson man is slow to learn. — the Editor