Restorationism: Strengths and Weaknesses

The Journal of Christian Studies volume 4, issue 2, will be shipping soon! Below is the table of contents for the issue, and an excerpt from Scott Adair's long form response to the interview questions. Be sure to subscribe today to receive this issue!

---

Table of Contents:

Interview Responses:

Scott Adair

Douglas A. Foster

John Mark Hicks

F. LaGard Smith

James W. Thompson

Articles:

Ephraim Radner, "Becoming One: Pneumatic Mereology"

Benny Tabalujan, "Restorationism and Sectarianism: Are They Severable?"

---

Scott Adair:

1)          What are the best distinctives of Churches of Christ that should be shared with the wider Christian world?

Our Lord’s Supper practice comes to mind. On any given Sunday at the church I attend, I can look around and see visitors from various backgrounds—whether Baptist, Pentecostal, paedobaptist or possibly even unchurched—eating and drinking at the table of the Lord. Technically speaking, this may not be considered “open communion” since we do not explicitly invite people from various other Christian backgrounds to participate in the meal. In fact, there is likely an unspoken understanding that this Supper is only for the properly baptized. Still, we do not prohibit or discourage anyone from partaking. If anything at all is said about who should take the Supper, some sort of appeal is made to the conscience of each individual based on the exhortation to examine ourselves in 1 Corinthians 11.

Throughout church history, Christians have debated whether the Lord’s Supper should be inclusive or exclusive, and early Restorationists are no exception. After considerable deliberation, the wise balance that prevailed in the Stone-Campbell Movement is captured with the following resolution: “We neither invite nor debar.” The practice that results from this mediating posture communicates openness and acceptance to all who wish to participate. Defending this approach, Barton Stone reasoned, “If I err, let it be on the side of charity.”

2)          What are the most significant weaknesses or deficiencies in Churches of Christ that must be addressed? 

Our most significant weakness is our lack of an agreed-upon summary of core beliefs, which comes as a result of our non-creedalism. “Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith,” proposed Thomas Campbell, “nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God.” This rejection of extra-biblical creeds is a constitutive principle of Restorationism. The founders pointed to confessions and creeds as the root cause for division between Christians. They were primarily concerned about how documents such as the Westminster Confession or Augsburg Confession functioned as sectarian lines of demarcation or tests of faith; but in eschewing extra-biblical creeds, they also raised suspicion regarding the ancient Christian creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. This feature still runs deep in Restorationist churches. The Churches of Christ have an aversion not only to sectarian tests of faith, but also to the ancient creeds. Regarding the latter, it is not that we reject the theological claims within the creeds; in fact, we would likely agree with almost every statement. Rather, it is the creeds themselves that we reject because we hold that Scripture, particularly the New Testament, is our sole source of authority for doctrine and practice. In practical terms, this means that we do not use the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed in our curriculum nor do we recite them in our services or at our baptisms. It is not an exaggeration to say that a person born and raised in a typical Church of Christ could go her whole life without hearing anything about the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed. Nevertheless, it is a bit vexing that we still view these historic, Scripture-laden summaries with suspicion, given the lax posture we tend to have toward songs. A popular song played on Christian radio with ideas that may not square with Scripture has a far better chance of making it onto the Sunday morning Power Point presentation than a tried-and-true creed that is 1,700 years old.

While our aversion to sectarian confessions is in keeping with our desire for unity, our rejection of the historic Christian confessions may have created more problems than it has solved. The main problem is that it leaves us without a clear summary of core beliefs. As a result, the Churches of Christ are often beset with the following interrelated deficiencies. First, we lack a clear theological center. Without an agreed-upon set of core doctrines, we have not always anchored our faith in that which matters most. Second, we have no agreed-upon lens through which to read Scripture. Without an official guiding framework for our faith, there is no way to ensure that our churches read and understand Scripture in a consistent and coherent way. As such, Churches of Christ have too often interpreted the Bible in idiosyncratic and divisive ways. Third, not having a summary of faith means not having a distillation of the apostolic message, that is, the gospel. Without a consistent articulation and focus on the historic gospel, our churches have sometimes preached a “gospel” that is fragmented, distorted, or incomplete. Fourth, we lack a mechanism to help us prioritize doctrines. Without an authoritative summary of core beliefs, it has been difficult for Churches of Christ to distinguish primary theological matters from those that are secondary, tertiary, or peripheral. Fifth, we have too often enforced unwritten, sectarian “creeds.” Even though we have successfully banned written tests of faith, the Churches of Christ have sometimes replaced these with unwritten creeds which have functioned as equally powerful lines of demarcation between us and other Christians. Barton Stone expressed concerns about this phenomenon as he merged his unity movement with that of the Campbells in 1832:

There are two kinds of human authoritative creeds—one is drawn up in articles, and written or printed in a book—the other is a set of doctrines or opinions received, but not committed to writing, or printed in a book. Each of these kinds of creeds is used for the same purpose, which is to exclude the man, who dares to dissent from them. Of the two, we certainly give preference to creeds written and published; because we can read them, and form a more correct judgment of the doctrines contained in them.

In short, our non-creedalism, which was born out of a desire for unity, has been as much a barrier as it has been a bridge. In pointing toward a solution, the Churches of Christ need an agreed-upon theological center, a lens through which to read Scripture to guard against idiosyncratic, isolationist, divisive interpretations. We need an authoritative and historic summary to help us distinguish non-negotiable truths from other important, though not core, matters of faith. What we need is a clear articulation of the gospel. I will take up this point in greater detail in my answers to questions 4 and 5......

SUBSCRIBE today to receive this issue!

Subscribe to JCS