Restoration Movement Reflections on Church Identity and Unity
Gene Carter, Becky Ahlberg, and Eric Ahlberg reflect on whether the Restoration Movement still matters and how their commitments have changed over time. Their answers explore doctrine, family heritage, church loyalty, postmodern culture, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the enduring call to Christian unity.
- The three respondents describe both doctrinal and familial ties to the Restoration Movement.
- They discuss how Restoration principles apply in changing church and cultural contexts.
- Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Scripture, unity, and congregational responsibility remain central themes.
Answers from Gene Carter, Becky Ahlberg, and Eric Ahlberg
Does the Restoration Movement Matter? Answers from Gene Carter, Becky Ahlberg, and Eric Ahlberg
Gene Carter is retired in Playa del Rey, California, after 55 years of ministry, 25 in the Midwest and 30 in Southern California.
Becky Ahlberg is worship and neighborhood engagement minister at Anaheim (California) First Christian Church and a CHRISTIAN STANDARD contributing editor.
Eric Ahlberg is a member of Anaheim First Christian and a forensic structural engineer at Exponent Corporation in Irvine, California.
Do you feel as strongly about being a part of the Restoration Movement today as you did fifteen years ago? What, if anything, has changed?
Gene: No — I guess that associating with so many other people who are like minded — though they are not Restoration people — has changed my perspective. Close association with Church of God people and other non denominational people makes me feel like there are others who are practicing the same principles — with a few different traditions, but basically similar in their approach to scripture; not Calvinistic, etc.
Becky: No — I probably feel stronger. 15 years ago, I felt like the Restoration Movement was really weak — I think it is making somewhat of a comeback. Our leadership role in church planting and mega churches as well as other newer trends like external focus and community involvement has moved us from “wannabes” to viable models for others. I think we had some inferiority complexes back then that we’ve matured past thankfully.
Eric: As I was 15 years old 15 years ago, my perspective on the Restoration Movement has changed considerably. At fifteen, my commitment to First Christian Church of Anaheim was more to my friends in the youth group than to a doctrine or creed. At thirty, though, I’m pleased to find that the movement into which I was placed as a child is one I’m able to confidently identify with as an adult.
Is your commitment to the Restoration Movement primarily doctrinal or familial, or both?
Gene: Both. Though at my age, I’m not even sure what’s going on in the brotherhood, I still believe that it is theologically the place where I am most comfortable. I’m not as dogmatic as I used to be — again because of the opportunity in my life to meet so many others who share so much of my strong belief in the importance of Biblical principles. In a familial sense, I grew up at the Westside Church in Springfield, IL. My preachers were Laverne Taylor (who baptized me), Orval Morgan, Ernie Laughlin and Reuben Anderson. I grew up believing that we were the “true” church. I’m grateful for their strong influence in my life — they don’t make preachers like that anymore. They were so focused on the importance of steering clear of denominationalism and its problems, that it had a huge impact on my thinking.
Becky: Both. Most of the really influential people in my life are from the Restoration Movement. I have such a shared history with so many from our movement — went to RM colleges, served RM churches (except for a short stint on staff in a Evangelical Covenant church), taught in a RM college, served with several RM ministries/boards. Doctrinally speaking, I am more convinced than ever that the foundation set by the Campbell/Stone pioneers was to approach Biblical interpretation with scholarship AND humility. Real RM principles acknowledge that no one — and no one group — can have all the knowledge of God and an infallible interpretation of scripture. That’s so important and what continues to draw me.
Eric: My commitment to the Restoration Movement has its roots in family and doctrine. The example of family and friends as active members of Restoration Movement churches and organizations certainly gave me an affinity for it, but the doctrinal components are foundational. The authority of scripture, the model of the first-century church, the focus on core beliefs rather than denominational issues — all of these ideas heavily influence my understanding of Christianity.
If you moved into a new town and there was a strong and growing Evangelical church, and a weak and declining Christian church, which would you likely attend?
Gene: Probably the Christian Church. I think I have a deep sense of loyalty to the Christian Church and I think I’d probably see it as a chance to be helpful.
Becky: That’s a tough one. My sense of loyalty is such that I would probably at least try to make the Christian Church work, especially back when my children were still in the picture. I think I’d at least give the Christian Church the first chance and then try to discern the vision of the leadership and the opportunities to serve.
Eric: I don’t know that “Evangelical church” really describes something consistently distinct from “Christian church” in my experience. I have always gravitated towards Christian churches, and, I would most likely choose to attend one. However, my sense is that there are Christian churches out there that I would have a hard time supporting, while there are Evangelical churches that would be like a second home to me. I would have to attend both and get a sense for the purpose and direction of each congregation, regardless of the identifiers in their names.
Do you believe the Restoration Movement is just as valid in a postmodern environment as it was in the environment of the modern age? Why or why not?
Gene: I think the principals are sound. It may be that the urgency has shifted because we’ve done such a good job that other “non denominational” churches can help carry the banner of “Christians only.” Our job has always been to be biblical — if we’re really serious about restoring the New Testament church, we should be thrilled at whoever is doing so. Our daughter moved into the Pacific Northwest where she tried a Christian church — finding it very narrow and sectarian, a Disciples church — still not finding a fit – and then finally finding a home at a Church of God. I’m pleased that they have found a place where they can worship and serve. I will say that I find the definitions in postmodern thinking a bit contrived — though I suppose that’s being too modern.
Becky: Well, I’m probably too modern to be objective. RM principles require that we start with scripture that is always valid. I think that RM principles are better than most at being flexible enough to address postmodern issues while remaining Biblical. It seems to me that our belief that we are not the only Christians, that we remain independent of “hierarchy” and that we are unwilling to claim that we have figured out all of the “truth” (in matters of opinion, liberty) would be very attractive to postmodern thinking. Our problems have always come in determining the “essentials” that should unify us – even though we are urged to remember “in all things charity.”
Eric: I do believe that the Restoration movement is valid in a “postmodern” world. I also believe that postmodern perspective, especially as a reaction to modernism, approaches the world with just a different set of simplifications. I tend to find practical truths in both modern and postmodern views of reality, and I think our job, as critically thinking adults, is to find and appropriate the best tools of both views. Restoration movement churches are able to appropriate the modern idea of the authority of scripture, while still equipping each member to approach the scriptures as a critical learner. This allows the individual to bring their own viewpoint and experiences to their study, but be bound to the rest of the body by accepting the Bible as a common denominator.
How important are the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper? Do you think your view on these two issues is more conservative than your parents (and/or your children), less conservative, or about the same?
Gene: They’re still important because we’re commanded in scripture to observe them and they are the heart of the gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are the foundation of our faith. I think my view has remained about the same over the years because I think they are central to the gospel there’s no room for fudge factor.
Becky: I have to admit I struggle with this. I believe that they are central — part of the core — of the gospel and to the narrative of the early church. I think there’s room for flexibility in how and where we observe them in our worship, but I don’t agree with those who omit them, or lessen their importance in an attempt to somehow make the gospel more accessible to non believers. Their importance is in the “doing” as a community of faith because they represent (and bear witness to) our understanding of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Eric: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both very important elements of our Christianity. For all the discussion over whether to baptize by immersion, sprinkling, or to baptize at all, or over whether communion should be once a week or at some other interval, it seems clear to me that Jesus was baptized by immersion and that he thought that his disciples should share the cup and loaf often. Unless there’s a compelling reason not to do these things, why not do them?
To you, what is the most compelling element of the Restoration Movement?
Gene: I suppose it’s openness and lack of hierarchy. It takes away the barriers to all of us being one — Christ’s prayer for unity should still compel us to strive to be His Church — One Church.
Becky: Our plea to be “Christians only, not the only Christians.” We’ve not always been true to that, but I do think it is part of the noble foundation of the move away from denominationalism. I love that we strive to go to scripture first, acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers and are inclusive of those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord.
Eric: The most compelling part of the Restoration Movement is that individual congregations, and their individual members, need to know the scriptures so they themselves can be sure of what the Lord would have us be doing. I like that this responsibility is not delegated to professional scholars, but is required for all of us.
