Highlights
in Restoration History . . .
MEET A DIFFERENT BREED OF RESTORATIONISTS
Those
who choose to refer to our heritage as “the Restoration
Movement” are obligated to accept the ambiguity of the term. We
learn in logic that a good definition must be both inclusive and
exclusive in that it must be broad enough to include all of
its class and yet narrow enough to exclude things similar but
different. I have had fun with students in defining such a word as
boot in such a way as to include all boots, even baby boots,
and yet exclude all shoes, even high top shoes. I recall that we came
up with something like: “Footware, usually made of leather or
rubber, that covers the foot and more or less the leg.”
“Restoration
Movement” as a defining term of the Stone-Campbell Movement
would have a rough time of it in a logic class, assuming the students
had the facts. It violates both rules in that it is too broad and too
narrow. We cannot be “the Restoration Movement” simply
because there is no such thing, unless perchance one refers to all
the nearly 200 restoration sects as “the Restoration Movement.”
So it is too broad a term for what our people intend, for it would
have to include the Mormons and the Plymouth Brethren, who are
restorationists, to name just two.
The term
is also too narrow as a description of our heritage in that
restoration was but one facet, even a subordinate facet, of our
heritage. It was primarily a unity movement. We would do better,
therefore, simply to refer to “our heritage” or “our
Movement” or “the Stone-Campbell Movement.” It is
noteworthy that our pioneers nearly always referred to their efforts
as “the Reformation,” but Campbell’s term “the
New Reformation” is a better definition.
It
is interesting what has happened to us along this line, for these
days we actually disparage reformation in favor of restoration. A
recent article in Firm Foundation on “Restoration, Not
Reformation” is typical. That is made to mean that one can’t
reform existing Christianity, so the true church of the New Testament
must be restored. Each group (at least 176 of them!) presumes itself
to be that one, true, restored church. This is not what our pioneers
believed, not even when they occasionally used the term restoration.
Does it
not impress you that something is drastically wrong when
restorationists come up with 176 different interpretations as to what
constitutes “the restored church” of the New Testament?
It may help for me to introduce to you with some detail one of these
groups, a “restoration” church that you probably have
never heard of, and it may well out-restoration “the
Restoration Movement” (meaning us!).
The Old
German Baptist Brethren, who came to America in 1719, trace
themselves back to the Anabaptists, who believed in “restoration,
not reformation” in that they rejected the Protestant
Reformation. As restorationists always do, the Anabaptists divided
and subdivided, resulting in such sects as the Amish and Mennonites.
The Old German Baptist Brethren is one more of these Anabaptist
sects.
They
admit to being separatists, rejecting other churches, and deny being
Protestant. The New Testament is their only creed. As restorationists
they are dedicated to restoring the primitive church in its purity.
Some of their practices will be familiar to you, while others may
challenge you, depending on how “restorationist” you are.
1. They
baptize by triune (three times) immersion, based on Mt. 28:19.
2. They
wash one another’s feet as both a command and an example (Jn.
13:4-17).
3. They
take the Lord’s Supper at night (Jn. 13:30) and tarry one for
another (1 Cor. 11:33-34).
4. They
greet one another with a holy kiss, and cite several passages for
this.
5. They
anoint and lay hands on the sick (Jas. 5:14-15).
6. The
sisters cover their heads while the brothers uncover theirs (1 Cor.
11:3-10).
7. They
labor for nonconformity to the world in its vain and wicked customs
(Rom. 12:2 is their most quoted passage).
8. They
do not go to law (1 Cor. 6:1-8).
9.
Musical instruments are not used in worship (they quote the same
passages we do about singing, along with Amos 6:5!!!)
10.
Divorce allowed only for cause of fornication (Mt. 19:9).
And
you thought you were “the Restoration Movement”
and the one, true restored church! Never try to outdo the Germans!
Here are all the ingredients of restorationism. They are separatists, non-Protestant, primitivists in that they assume to “reproduce” the primitive church, and a proof text for every unique practice.
The Mormons, of course,
would add baptism for the dead - and a proof text! But they would
reject the list of the Old Brethren, which is always the case with
restorationists. They are all very selective, choosing only what they
want to practice, rejecting what they find distasteful, even when
others provide the proof text.
And they
all divide, again and again. The Old German Baptist Church divided in
this country in 1921 over the use of the automobile.
I of course accept the dear Old German Brethren as equals in the Lord, and I respect them for their convictions and salute them for being more consistent “restorers” than Christian Churches-Churches of Christ. We are only saying that restorationism is a problem wherever it is found, and the bottom line of that problem is more and more sects for an already divided church. --- the Editor
Until restoration advocates “catch up” with their founding fathers by providing fellowship with large liberty for honest convictions arising from study of the New Testament, they will continue to proliferate Churches of Christ Number One, Two, etc. --- A. T. DeGroot, New Possibilities for Disciples and Independents.