IS IT THE CHURCH WE ARE TO RESTORE?

Some of our Church of Christ folk in Dallas who conduct Christian Tracts have published a tract entitled Restoring the New Testament Church, written by Paul McClung. It does a good job in setting forth what it refers to as “the peculiar plea of the church of Christ,” which it describes as “a complete restoration of the church which was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ in the city of Jerusalem.”

As a rule one can be suspect of any doctrine or practice that is unique to any religious society. I t is those peculiar notions that set people apart as a sect, especially when they have allowed that peculiarity to become the criterion by which all others are judged. If only one group believes in the revelations of Ellen G. White or Joseph Smith, or only one group practices extreme unction or wears such a unique name as Methodist or Baptist (or Church of Christ?), it strongly suggests a sectarian attitude somewhere along the line. Those things that are clearly set forth in holy writ are never characteristic of only one group.

I am willing, however, to save brother McClung from this categorization, for it so happens that the concept of restoration is not peculiar to our people, for there were numerous restoration movements long before the like of Campbell and Stone, in whose time brother McClung sees the “Church of Christ Restored.” There is, though, a peculiar emphasis that many of our leaders give to the restoration plea, including Paul McClung in this tract, that is highly questionable, and that contributes more to sectism than to the unity of believers. This is the notion that our task is to restore the church itself, which of course implies that it has gone out of existence.

This is not merely a matter of semantics, for there is a basic difference in looking at both the church and restoration. The church is viewed as a “something” having doctrines, forms, institutions, and practices that, once correctly restored, really does exist once more. This view sees the church as pure and right in apostolic times, but then falling away because of various innovations, only to be “restored” in the Restoration Movement led by Alexander Campbell. This means that God’s church did not exist upon earth for centuries, buried as it was in the morass of apostasy, only to be resurrected by the clarion call of our pioneers. This view equates the Restoration Movement with the Church of Christ, and there is the strong implication that since the church has been restored the Restoration Movement is no longer needed, having fulfilled its mission in giving us what we now call the Church of Christ. There is, therefore, no need in bringing individuals or congregations into a so-called Restoration Movement. We simply point them to the Church of Christ as “the restored New Testament church.”

No one would object to such a view of restoration more than the pioneers themselves. They did not suppose that God’s church did not exist and that it was therefore their mission to restore it. They realized that the congregation of Christ has existed all through the ages, that, as Jesus said, the gates of hades would not prevail against it. The church surely had its inadequacies and impurities (but hasn’t it always?), and it was terribly divided and sectarian. These things our pioneers sought to correct. This is why they chose to call themselves reformers. To reform the church is to make better that which already exists. To restore the church is to bring back into existence that which once was but for some reason disappeared. So if we use the term restore in reference to our task, then we should speak of restoring to the church the things that are wanting. Campbell, therefore, sought to restore unity to the church, along with other things, so as to make it what God wants it to be. Such is our task. Restoration is the means of reformation, and it is a task that never ends.

The notion that our pioneers in one great leap carried us all the way back to Jerusalem is a damaging fallacy. Dr. Richardson, in his Memoirs of Campbell, explains that the sage of Bethany saw his mission as that of continuing the reformation begun by Luther. Campbell realized that it was indeed the body of Christ that concerned Luther, that it certainly existed in his time, and that he was seeking to free it from priestcraft and superstition. Any notion of restoration that ignores all such history and assumes that the church was nonexistent all those centuries is both unreasonable and unscriptural. That we and our forbears have been brought on eagles’ wings to the pristine beauty of New Testament Christianity and that this is amply evident in our own Church of Christ is a claim both extravagant and arrogant.

This kind of thinking runs a recognizable pattern. Not only did we bring the true church back into existence in the days of Campbell, but we make a big deal about it not being a denomination, just as the apostolic church was not a denomination. In view of what denomination means this is merely saying that the New Testament church had no name, that is, it was not designated in a way as to distinguish it from others. But the tract under consideration insists on the name Church of Christ. It is “the Church of Christ restored,” as brother McClung puts it, and this is the designation he cites when he asks, “What name did the early church wear?” Well, if Church of Christ was the name of the primitive church, then it was a denomination.

But this is the way the game goes that we play. This tract refers to the discipline, organization, and worship of the early church, as well as the name, and the point is that we in the Church of Christ have faithfully restored all these features of primitive Christianity. It is agreed that the early church’s singing was “a cappella,” while in fact it would be difficult to prove congregational singing of any kind. And 2 John 9 is quoted as a warning in this regard. Says brother McClung: “If we should use a mechanical instrument we would be going on and abiding not in the doctrine of Christ.”

Lifting a verse from its context like this, making it refer to something the writer never intended so as to uphold one’s own opinion, is grossly sectarian, And when we use the silence of the scriptures, as in the case of instrumental music, to argue for our own uniqueness in being like the New Testament church, even to the point of excluding all those who do not agree with us, we are a hindrance rather than a help to the cause of peace and unity.

Let us, like our pioneers before us, acknowledge that all the powers of Satan cannot destroy the congregation of Christ on earth. Wherever there is a disciple of Jesus there is the body of Christ. Since the time our Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my church” there has not been one day without there being some members of that church somewhere. There have been digressions and innovations, to be sure. The church has been and may even now be threatened with decadence. But still it is the church. Even the church at Sardis, described as dead by the Lord himself, was urged to “Awake and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death.” It is true that Jesus threatens to remove the candlestick from some congregations, such as the one at Ephesus (Rev. 2:5), but it is best that we leave that judgment in his hand.

The Restoration Movement must be an effort within the church to reform its faith and practice and to restore the things that are wanting. The Church of Christ, whether denomination or not, should carry on a labor of love in making the church at large what God wants it to be. We lose nothing in acknowledging that there are Christians besides ourselves and that the church of God on earth embraces more than our own number. There will be glory enough if we allow ourselves to be used for the peace and unity of his church, and to contribute something to “preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” at least in our own ranks. - the Editor