Neo-Restoration

As far as I know, Neo-Restoration is my own conception; I am certainly not borrowing it, and I cannot find the idea anywhere else. I’ve batted the idea around initially with some peers, and they seem to like the idea but think people in our position—seminary students with limited understanding—will have a difficult time writing on this topic (and likely any other!) legitimately. I tend to agree, which has helped me refine my own idea of what I ought to be doing with the conception. First, I am eager to develop it and refine it, and I intend to use this blog as a primary means to do so. This is a way to get the idea out and to mediate a much needed dialogue. Second, I will be writing explicitly from a seminary student’s perspective. This is my slant. While I would much rather be an expert or at least more greatly credentialed, I am not. But in fact, the concerns I intend to present may be more pointedly articulated from the vista of one who is looking at the Restoration Movement as a prospective missionary and minister. I intend, therefore, to represent the concerns of the next generation of theological thinkers in the Churches of Christ, as I understand us. Indeed, my intention is not simply to stimulate thought among my peers but also to ask for a hearing from the church at present.

Neo-Restoration is a reconceptualization and reformulation of the Restoration Plea in light of (1) what the Restoration Plea was and effectually became and (2) the need for the Restoration movement to address modern-day concerns that a mid-nineteenth century vision of the church was incapable of anticipating. Implicit in my endeavor are two assumptions. On one hand, I am rooted and at home in the Restoration Movement, particularly the Church of Christ (a cappella). I do not feel that the Restoration Movement is simply to be done away with as a theological option. On the other hand, I feel considerable tension with many of the assumptions and predilections of the Restoration Fathers as they are implemented (often unconsciously) in the church today. This is made more acute as I study a wider theological world that necessarily lays bare the shortsightedness of the Churches of Christ.

Neo-Restoration, then, is born of my belief that restoring the “primitive” church is not the mission of the modern church and that the hermeneutic adopted to the end is not an acceptable theological method. Given that these are the mores of the Restoration Movement, I am faced with the question of theological compatibility between myself and my church. This is not simply a personal battle, however. Though Bible students in our seminaries deal with these issues in different ways, a great many of them are faced with the same dissonance and questioning, and a great many of those move forward with a perspective radically different than that of the historical Restoration Movement. We are all trying to find our place, desiring not to be presumptuous or inconsiderate, but in terms of intellectual honesty and faith conviction, are unable to accept important facets of Restoration Theology. Many in a position similar to mine will, I think, simply press on and quietly work for the change they see necessary—as all ministers do. In my studies of Karl Barth, the father of Neo-Orthodoxy, I am struck by another option. He openly puts forth another—for him, better—way of being orthodox. He does not seek to leave his tradition, but to re-envision it so that great continuity remains but important differences are effected. This is my intention.

I lay out briefly what I see as the essential continuities and discontinuities.

Continuities:

Neo-Restoration is ecumenical. The Restoration Plea was most basically a call to unity. The well-known move away from our ecumenical heritage has been devastating and an emphasis on unity must itself be restored.

Neo-Restoration is missional. Evangelization of the world was the end to which unity was the means. Becoming mired in the effort to implement a unifying method of biblical interpretation ended in the loss of this vision. Isaiah 49:6 provides the paradigm for Neo-Restoration: “he says: ‘It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.’” The restoration of the church (in terms of ecumenicity) is equally too small a thing; it serves that we might bring salvation to the ends of the earth.

Neo-Restoration Theology is biblical theology. Our talk about God is rooted first and foremost in Scripture. The Restoration Movement’s relentless emphasis on being “biblical” constitutes its greatest strength and should not be lost.

Discontinuities:

Neo-Restoration Theology is not biblicist theology. The literal-logical hermeneutic of frontier Rationalism is inadequate. The rejection of “philosophy” and “theology” is itself a philosophical/theological move. To be biblical is to learn to do theology as the biblical writers did rather than simply to apply their contextualized theological determinations to any context. An open philosophical/theological dialogue walks hand in hand with Neo-Restoration ecumenicity. Even these contour lines are radically different than the traditional hermeneutic of the Churches of Christ.

Neo-Restoration does not seek to restore the “primitive” church. It is commonly asked in jest whether we really want to be like, for example, the Corinthian church. This is a point well taken, joke or not. It is only a small step from there to the realization that the cultural forms and theological exigencies of the first century church are not timeless norms. To be the “biblical” church does not entail imitating the forms and patterns of the first century church. It entails imitating Christ’s incarnation with careful consideration of relevant cultural forms and contemporary theological exigencies.

What, then, is Neo-Restoration interested in restoring? In keeping with the continuities listed above, it seeks to restore the unity of Christianity, and most fundamentally it seeks to be involved in God’s restoration of all things (cf. Acts 3:21).

What A Ride

There are times in life when God's involvement is much clearer than others, for one reason or another. I had one of the moments while sprawled out in the floor of some Peru missionaries' house. Waiting at their house for the hour of my flight home to draw near, I was lulled into sleepiness by Hebrew homework, so I laid down on their floor. There is something about odd situations like laying on someone else's livingroom floor that make a person think. My thought was, 'How in the world did I get here? I'm laying on the floor of some people I've just met who are fanatically religious enough to live in an impoverished foreign country while raising two small children.'

There are many 'reasonable' responses to my musings, but in case you've not yet caught my sense of wonder at the situation, I'll try to make it a little clearer. Have you ever remembered where you thought you'd be at this point in you life? Most of the time I don't have any clear vision of where I'll be, but most of life is normal enough that it fits in my broad scheme. For instance, I'm in seminary in Memphis. Going back a number of years, I'd not have guessed that for my future, but in many ways it figures and I'm not all that suprised to find myself here. There are an infinite number of such examples. It was something else, though, to picture what I must look like laying in a floor in Lima, Peru thousands of miles from home. Just imagine one of those movie camara shots that zooms in from an astronaut's-eye-view. There is the earth, then the western hemisphere, then South America, then Peru, then the sprawling Lima metropolis, then the barrio on the inland side of the hills, then the neighborhood, then the house, then the living room, and there lays a gringo! All you can say is, 'How did he get there!?' As a highschooler I could never have imagined this situation. It's so random and so out of the ordinary. Perhaps it is a sad commentary that it takes random and unusual to really open my eyes, but I saw God at work. I saw him directing my steps, providing needed relationships, preparing the way for our work, and on, and on.

As outrageous as it was to be in that place in that moment, I had to chuckle at God. It is fascinating and exciting to see what he does with a willing participant in his project. He can take people to the most unexpected places and use them in unthought of ways. What a ride.