By Dick Alexander
This January, Standard Publishing”s Publishing Committee, CHRISTIAN STANDARD”s contributing editors, and a few other key leaders met in a retreat to discuss the future. Key questions included, “Why does the Restoration Movement exist? What do we contribute? What is our vision for what Christian churches and churches of Christ should be and accomplish in the next decades? What do we want to look like 50 years from now . . . and what can we do today to begin painting that picture?”
Although much time was given to freewheeling dialogue, two speakers set the tone with their challenging papers. We”re publishing them this week and inviting all our readers to join the discussion.
In 1984 I was privileged to be part of an ad hoc meeting in St. Louis of about 50 leaders convened out of a sense the Restoration Movement had lost its identity and direction. The gathering was to discuss where we had come from, who we were, and where we were headed.
While the participants largely agreed about the history, there was divergence on where we stood at the time, and disagreement about the future. Whatever questions existed then have only intensified””with no growing consensus. If it is any consolation, Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, says angst about identity is widespread among Evangelicals.
In the opinion of this writer, Christian churches and churches of Christ are in a marvelous position for the present and future, if we will seize the day. But that is a big if.
Some challenges and some ideas:
Looking Back
It seems strange in a way that we talk of being part of the “Restoration Movement” today, since there hasn”t been a Restoration Movement for well over 100 years. Our speaking of being the Restoration Movement would be like Presbyterians saying they are the Reformation. They came from the Reformation, and we have come from the Restoration Movement.
Movements last a generation or two at most. The Campbell-Stone Movement played itself out on the American frontier in the middle of the 19th century. And then in the first quarter of the 20th century, this once great unity movement fractured into three distinct groups.
In looking at our present and future, we would benefit from laying aside Restoration Movement terminology except as an historical reference, and developing a new vocabulary that is descriptive, and also capable of motivating future generations.
Additionally, it would help us to admit that the Restoration Movement essentially failed. A widely shared view holds the Restoration Movement was a unity movement based on Scripture, for the sake of world evangelism. When the Restoration Movement began, there were roughly 200 denominations in America; today there are more than 1,500 (depending on who”s counting), and the Restoration Movement added three more groups to the mix. Additionally, two of the three groups spawned by the movement were, at least for an extended time, among the most sectarian of all Christian groups. Could that possibly represent success for a 200-year-old unity movement?
Today we are a small, vibrant fellowship of churches that came from the Restoration Movement and has great ministry potential, but this in no way approximates the vision of the originators.
The Restoration Movement was doomed to fail, as it was based on a faulty ideal””beautiful, but flawed. The originators believed that if a simple, biblical Christianity void of human tradition were presented, that its veracity would be obvious to all. Seeing this clear truth, believers would leave their denominations and be Christians only. In practice, this meant people, leaders, and churches should leave their groups and join us.
But this overconfidence in human objectivity, born of the Enlightenment, soon proved faulty. Despite a few great anecdotes still told today of churches tearing down their denominational signs and becoming just Christians, denominations not only continued, but proliferated. Once the catsup of denominations was out of the bottle, it was destined to continue until Jesus” return.
The unity question for today is not, how can we get people to leave their groups to join ours? but how can we encourage a spiritual and practical unity across denominational lines for the sake of the work of Christ, while being true to Scripture?
The reason for saying the Restoration Movement failed isn”t meant as a criticism of its leaders. They were great men””visionary and courageous leaders who did absolutely the best they could with the knowledge they had.
But if we believe the movement succeeded, we will attempt to replicate the past. If we acknowledge their noble effort did not meet its goal, we can learn from their mistakes, and by the grace of God, forge a better future. The goal and ideals remain, but fresh strategies are needed.
By the middle of the 20th century we believed we had restored the church, centering mainly on its polity and ordinances. No longer a restoration movement or a unity movement, we became a baptism movement. The litmus test of orthodoxy was a single question”””Is baptism essential for salvation?”””leaving us perilously close to acting like the only Christians.
Ironically, in the last quarter of the 20th century, sectarianism diminished significantly among Bible-believing Christians. Writers like Max Lucado and Chuck Swindoll and movements like Promise Keepers transcended denominational lines. God was accomplishing unity without us, and many Christian groups, especially Evangelicals, were demonstrating a high regard for Scripture.
By the turn of the new millennium, many (most?) of the things our fellowship held dear were widely practiced in other Evangelical fellowships. Most new people in our churches were unfamiliar with the Restoration Movement, especially in newer and faster-growing churches. Leaders intuitively sensed the restoration terminology would not get traction, even though almost all in our fellowship love the idea of a simple, biblical Christianity.
The Present
It would be fair to say our fellowship of churches suffers today from an identity crisis. We would be hard-pressed to state our unifying ideals.
Go ahead””try it. Ask five church leaders to write down what our brotherhood stands for. We lack agreed-on, clearly articulated principles.
In the second quarter of the 20th century, fresh from a split with the emerging Disciples denomination, we were united by common enemies””theological liberalism and organizational control.
As those lost their relevance, we remained tied together by our institutions””the North American Christian Convention, colleges, in some cases state conventions””and by our publications. By the end of the last century, those were losing strength.
So are we now, in the words of The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, “to sink into union with the body of Christ at large”? Possibly.
Reggie McNeal writes, “In the early stages of movements, proponents have to distinguish the new from the status quo. What it is not is as important as what it is. However, as the movement matures, what it is becomes more fully defined and capable of supporting its own existence without having to live off siphoned energy or allergic reactions to the prior thing-it-is-not. Actually movements that cannot get to this stage don”t survive; they last only as long as the reactionary core can generate enthusiasm among the initial adherents and the disgruntled they recruit” (Missional Renaissance, Jossey-Bass, 2009).
If McNeal is correct, we won”t survive far into this century without redefining unifying ideals powerful enough to hold us together. Does that matter? I think so.
This loose-knit network of churches is extremely well positioned for this century. We do share core doctrinal beliefs and a high value for evangelism, church planting, global mission, and practical, hands-dirty Christianity. Unencumbered by hierarchy, we can ramp up significant new ministries while more structured groups are still debating and discussing them. For action-oriented people who want to do something that matters in the world, there is absolutely no better place to be than here.
This fellowship of churches brings together an entrepreneurial spirit and the pooled resources that voluntary cooperation can bring, into a dynamic network perfectly positioned for the fast-changing time in which we live.
The Future
We are precariously positioned: on the one hand threatened by a lack of identity that could dissipate the voluntary network; on the other, possibly sitting on the verge of the greatest era of our history.
How can we stay connected and thrive? A few thoughts:
“¢ Refresh our unifying values, principles, and terminology.
Will a new Declaration and Address emerge? Thomas Campbell”s original was the manifesto of the Restoration Movement. It still holds great truths for today, but its terminology and thought forms no longer resonate. Could there be a compelling call to action that would mobilize us for a new century? Could our leaders provide a fresh statement of the core values that unite us? Can new terminology emerge that identifies who we are today, in the way that restoration terminology once served us?
“¢ Feed “micro networks.”
The greatest connectedness and life among us today is not in single, monolithic institutions, but in subgroups such as the National Missionary Convention and Exponential. While it”s unlikely any one institution will wire together our entire fellowship, there is great strength in emerging associations, and there is room for more.
“¢ Spotlight innovation.
Part of our DNA is entrepreneurship. We are masters at innovation. Is it possible after viewing the exhibit spaces at the NACC and NMC to believe that any Christian group has launched more initiatives per square inch than this one?
But it”s the game-changing innovations that will lead us into the new century””e.g. the New Thing Network from Community Christian, Christian Missionary Fellowship”s holistic work in Nairobi, Greg Nettle”s Kingdom Synergy Partnerships, and Shepherd of the Hills”s “Dream of Destiny.”
“¢ Spotlight catalytic leaders.
Good leaders lead people. Great leaders lead leaders. Catalytic leaders lead movements. Catalytic leaders can mobilize the church into great kingdom gains.
A Final Word
Christianity is declining in America, in spite of its growth on other continents. Arguably no group is better positioned than this one to initiate fresh expressions of the work of Jesus to connect with our fast-changing culture.
Christian churches/churches of Christ enter the 21st century at a crossroads. This fellowship could disintegrate, or it could thrive! I”m voting for the latter””I love being part of this!
Dick Alexander is senior minister at LifeSpring Christian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio.
I guess I’m a little lost here as someone who grew up outside of the Christian Church and restoration movement churches. Isn’t an emphasis on Christ and Christ alone in worship, communion, etc. the one unifying and most important principal? And perhaps the greatest strength that Christian Churches should hold to as a unifying principal? Growing up in the Lutheran Church, and knowing as much as I do about some denominations, I know that their greatest weakness was the lack of emphasis (at times, and especially in some churches) on the importance of Christ, his life and the way that he lived it, and his death and resurrection for the payment of our sins. I subscribe to the idea of throwing out terminology, and concentrating on the most important things that Jesus showed us throughout his life, and through his sacrifice on the cross, things that are actually in the BIble.
I think if the leadership centers on Christ, the people will follow. I suspect one of the greatest sources of confusion for non-believers, is the churches getting stuck on terminology and ways of doing things in the church, or creating or recreating movements, instead of focusing on Christ.