Recently I received an email from a woman with a few questions about how I left things with the Independent Christian Church/Churches of Christ or also known as the Restoration Movement. When I was in high school the first church I went to was a Christian Church and then I went on to go to a Bible College that was associated with Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Anyway, at one time back in 2004 I posted some thoughts which I honestly cannot find on my blog anywhere but remember writing in which I'm sure will keep me from ever getting a job at a really hard core Restoration movement church. Anyway, the email pertained to this so I wanted to post the email and my response because this is something I have thought about quite a bit.
"Dustin, I was raised in a denominational church with their myriad of rules and regulations that were not biblically based, even though they attempted to make the scriptures support their beliefs. For the last few years, I have attended and joined the Church of Christ. I ran across this statement in one of your Blogs from 2004, "That is not the Restoration Movement I read about in class. That actually seemed like a cool thing, how I am seeing it play out is not anything I want to be a part of. I wish you could just start a church and not have to play the bullshit denominational games because that is all it is. In the long run I doubt God is going to care who was Baptist, who was Independent Christian Church, who was Presbyterian." My questions are, do you still feel this way about the restoration movement or since this was posted a few years ago, have your views changed? If your views have changed, why do you leave it on your Blog and why have you not printed a retraction? Thanks for your time"
My Response:
Wow! This post is a blast from the past! I’ve got so many posts on the blog that it’s almost impossible to remember all of what I have written. What I can say about this one in particular is that I was extremely frustrated at the time with the political garbage that comes along with being a pastor and a part of a denomination (even if it was technically “non-denominational”). The reason I haven’t retracted this is 1. because I have so many posts that I could never read back through them again and correct all the ways I have changed over the past 3-5 years. 2. because this still sheds light and is a good record of what I was feeling in 2004.
But as far as the Christian Church/Churches of Christ I have much respect for this non-denominational “denomination” and have had great experiences with this network of churches. I found Jesus in a Christian Church, went to a Restoration Movement Bible College, and to this day most of my friends whom are fellow-pastors are a part of this network and I am very proud of the work they are doing within their church community. Today I work with a church in Portland Oregon that has no denominational ties and this is working well for us! As a pastor it gives you the freedom to minister to the people and do the work of the Lord without the denominational encumbrances that being a part of a denomination so often involves. Now, when I say that, I’m not even sure I’m talking about “non-denominational” churches having these encumbrances because they typically don’t. Looking back at the time of this post I was more upset at a specific incident which involved a “Restoration Movement” publication that was ripping apart my Mission Organization that I was working with in New York City for paying my salary to work at a Southern Baptist Church to help get it started. They railed them pretty hard and it upset me at the intolerance that this movement would exhibit when they claimed to be about unity! It was a total contradiction to everything I had been taught. That is where I see some of the older Christian Churches/Churches of Christ headed. To be honest though, those are far and few between and I realized quickly that this was a minority fringe group within the Restoration Movement that I should not even concern myself with! All that to say, I love the Christian Church/Churches of Christ and I love the freedom that they have and the principles that the movement was founded on. I could definitely worship and serve at a Christian Church again in the future, but at this point in my life I don’t really feel the need to label myself a specific brand of a church! I truly want to be non-denominational and have a great network with Baptist, Presbyterian, and Christian Churches and their pastors. They are all of my brothers in Christ and I want to treat them that way. Doing what I do now allows me to do that without focusing on the minuteau that we (Christians) so tend to get caught up in and distracted by.
I guess I would add one more thing that I thought about today. My friends who are pastors as Christian Churches (I believe) could care less about the actual "non-denominational" denomination. I'm not sure any of my friends read The Restoration Herald and I'm almost positive none of them could name more than three people involved at the beginning of the movement, or their major sayings (such as "No Creeds but Christ!" etc. Well, I imagine Jeff Gentry could, but that's because he's nerdy smart like that (no offense). Brad, Nick, Josh, Jon? Prove me wrong! Seriously though, do you have some heart-felt loyalty to the Restoration Movement that I don't know about? My belief is that you work there because it's how you grew up, there's not a lot of the denominational baggage, you enjoy the people you work with, not because you feel some kind of loyalty towards the movement etc. I don't even think you work at a Christian Church because you are completely sold on baptism being absolutely essential for salvation (by the way, that's another reason I'm truly non-denominational/I don't feel my theology fits in with the Arminian/baptism-crazy theology of the Disciples.)
Any thoughts?
16 comments:
Hi Dustin.
My faith originated in the church of christ heritage. I think its the southern, non-instrumental version of the christian church you were a part of.
(non-instrumental: I still find that funny as I'm a musician who received an instrumental music degree from a c-o-c university)
Anyway...I never understood the euphoria surrounding everyone's emphasis on baptism. I was curious if the christian church had the same emphasis.
i've actually never been to a non-instrumental Church of Christ, but have always found the idea funny. The best though is the church that split from them known as the "one-cuppers" or those who believe the only proper way to take communion is from one cup! Nice work at unity guys!
Anyway, the Christian Church places a lot of emphasis on baptism as well. I think baptism is important, and I think that if you are a follower of Christ then you are going to be baptized because you want to follow Jesus. But I think to teach it as "necessary for salvation" is not just unbiblical (in my interpretation) but placing unnecessary constraints on baptism. Instead of baptism being a joyous celebration, we've made it into a box to check off your list of things you have to do to be saved!
Dustin, I agree with you that, if anything, the Restoration Movement could be guilty of overemphasis on baptism to the point that it is often presented as an item to "check off your list of things you have to do to be saved". I think about this a lot in working with a campus ministry rooted in the Restoration movement (the founding principles of which I agree with), yet sincerely pursuing unity with the other Christian ministries. My goal is not just trying to keep the peace, but truly trying to be a part of Christ's vision when he prayed for "complete unity" in John 17.
Just playing devil's advocate here, what are your arguments for the teaching of "baptism as necessary for salvation" being unbiblical? I guess my question is, if not baptism, is there anything on our part that is "necessary" for salvation? Is belief? Is repentance? You already know the calling cards that Restorationists point to in the Bible regarding baptism and salvation ... Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:26-27 and perhaps including I Peter 3:21 and the beginning of Romans 6. Regardless of how I often disagree with the "non-denominational" Christian Church's presentation of this, I do see that there are similar associations in the Bible of baptism with salvation as there are with belief and repentance with salvation. The same could be said for confession (which, I think is often trivialized during church service "invitations") or even for how we forgive others given what Jesus said in Matthew 6:14-15.
I only bring that up because most followers of Christ I talk to who are strongly opposed to the necessity of baptism in salvation do so on the basis that it's a "work" (Ephesians 2:9). However, they fully believe in the absolute necessity for us to believe and repent, most often evidenced by saying the "sinner's prayer" or "asking Jesus into our hearts". But is a "work" simply limited to a physical act like baptism? Wouldn't actions of the mind (belief, repentance) or actions of the tongue (confession, prayer) still be "works" on our part? I tend to believe that all of these things are works ...
... but all of these things are pointless without God's grace. That's the problem I have with all of these arguments and that I personally have often been guilty of - the removal of grace as the single, central factor in our salvation. You might call it the "decentralization" of grace. I'm not saying its intentional, but overemphasizing the "steps" of salvation naturally takes away from the centrality of grace. I could fully believe, completely repent, truthfully confess and be baptized on Easter Sunday in the Jordan river by Ed Young and it would mean absolutely nothing without the grace of God to enact my salvation.
So that being said, do I think those other things (including baptism) are "necessary"? I would still say yes because, like Dustin said, if I'm a follower of Christ I'm going to because I want to follow Jesus. That's the example that was set and what I've been called to do.
Man, I'm sorry this is so long. Half of it probably didn't even make sense, but thanks for letting me ramble on about it anyway.
- John V
Hey John,
I will reply to this as soon as I find the time. Probably be either Sunday or Monday but I definitely want to have this discussion.
hey dustin, i don't mind being nerdy smart. i could name more than three, but my knowledge of our shared heritage is fairly limited. i've been thinking about reading more about our background in the near future though, so it's interesting that you brought this topic up.
for my part, i'm not currently a "member" of a restoration movement church but i do consider myself a definite part of the restoration tradition. much like you, my connection to the restoration movement is more relational than anything else. while i really appreciate campbell's focus on the sacrament and the word preached, i consider myself CCOC because i was nurtured in a CCOC affiliated congregation in my youth, my spiritual director is still affiliated with the tradition, i (somewhat surprisingly) have a deep affection for our alma mater and i am proud to journey forth with the CCOC folk we studied with and have built friendships with over the years.
that being said, i have to admit that my theology and praxis is quite eclectic and easy to distinguish from the CCOC "party line" insofar as my thought is more reformed than arminian, my ecclesiology preferences are pretty far removed from a representative democracy, my sacramental theology is probably more franciscan than campbellite, i'm wholeheartedly egalitarian with regards to women in ministry and i think creeds are cool (if not normative).
for these reasons as well as my unfortunate penchant for using four letter words it doesn't surprise me that CCOC old liners and leaders treat me with a studied disregard. but those poor bastards are just going to have to deal with me since i plan on being a part of this movement for the foreseeable future.
"I'm not sure any of my friends read The Restoration Herald and I'm almost positive none of them could name more than three people involved at the beginning of the movement..."
Because I'm a nerd...Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, B. W. Stone.
A good book is "Union in Truth: An Interpretive History of the Restoration Movement" by James B. North
I would agree with the necessity of baptism, however I would also agree that the R.M. has over-emphasized the point.
Most don't even know or understand the debate and yet follow through in baptism. If the majority are baptized then why make an argument over a non-issue.
Now maybe there is a place for debating one's understanding of baptism at the moment of baptism (Acts 19), but my experience and opinion tells me that ones understanding of (or lack of) the importance of baptism at the moment of baptism doesn't negate the work of the baptism.
dustin, any thoughts on "the breaking of the snickers bar" and the role it plays in the necessity of baptism for salvation?
just curious.
on a side note, as the one who baptized you...i would rather have you think that it was essential and necessary in order for you to make into heaven. that would make me feel more appreciated. just something to keep in mind.
Hey John, it's not that I think baptism is non-important to discipleship or this new life in Christ. Anyone who wants to follow Christ and have accepted his gift of salvation I am going to go through the scriptures on baptism and encourage them to be baptized because it's what Jesus commanded, it's a symbol of our salvation and it's our confirmation of faith to our community. At some point John this conversation basically leads to this question, "If baptism is necessary for salvation (in which I mean if you are not immersed as an adult you are going to hell-which already the bible has example of un-baptized going to heaven) then does the person have to consciously KNOW that this baptism is necessary to salvation?" If the person does not believe that it is necessary but just sees it as a symbol is it any less saving? That's what this conversation always seems to come down to.
And I believe in the principles of unity that were taught by the founding restoration movement leaders, but by those who most claim to be restoration churches I see anything but an effort for unity. Many of these churches believe that if you are Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. you are going to hell and that basically comes back to the baptism thing. Baptists may baptize but they don't TEACH that it is necessary for salvation therefore, they are going to hell. So I think with this doctrine so strongly held it is impossible for the ultra-conservative Christian Churches/Churches of Christ to achieve unity with any other denomination, and unfortunately rarely achieve that unity amongst each other! There have been more splits amongst this group that claims to be about unity than is rational or reasonable. That is what I was trying to point out. While I have many ties with Restoration churches relationally, and I believe in the foundational ideas and dreams of the movement, I simply can’t find a reason to subscribe to this denomination. Why not simply be TRULY non-denominational? At least that's where I'm at. I know that other people have different reasons for being a part of the denomination relationally, financially, theologically, etc. but for me right now it wouldn't make sense.
I guess when I say “unbiblical” I’m more talking about the exclusivist nature of the Christian church in regard to others who do not TEACH that baptism is a saving work but still baptize nonetheless. The condemnation of the Baptists for instance who baptize people upon conversion are still being condemned to hell because they didn’t explain that the waters of baptism were saving?
I don’t disagree with the associations in the Bible between baptism and salvation at all but I think there are an equal number of Scriptures that do not mention baptism as necessary for salvation. Acts 3:17-26; Acts 16:30 (although as you can see even though baptism wasn’t mentioned the jailer and his family were baptized), the thief on the cross, Jesus did not include baptism in his preaching and teaching about the kingdom, saying that baptism is “necessary” is like the Judaizers saying circumcision is necessary which Paul rejected in Gal. 5:1-12. There seems to be a tension in Scripture with regard to baptism. Where there are texts that sound like blatant arguments for salvation being tied with baptism, there are just as many that do not. It’s hard to know what to do with that.
There is just something about calling baptism “necessary” that for me makes it sound like an obligation over a celebration, a “must-do” over an “I desire to do this very badly”. I think this terminology cheapens the wonder of baptism!
By the way, this is a great quote! Made me laugh:
“I could fully believe, completely repent, truthfully confess and be baptized on Easter Sunday in the Jordan river by Ed Young and it would mean absolutely nothing without the grace of God to enact my salvation.”
Anyway, I think this is a great discussion. I would actually like to read the new “Understanding Four Views on Baptism” book. One of my old professors at LCC John Castelein argues for the CoC view. I’d love to read it alongside you if you’re up for it!
Hey TS,
By the way, is this Tom Harrison from LCC??? Or is this someone different?
Hey, I said more than three people, you just named the three major one! I have read Union in Truth back in college and thought the principles that the movement was founded on were noble and I try to live by them!
”If the majority are baptized then why make an argument over a non-issue?”
-Good question! I don’t know!
"Now maybe there is a place for debating one's understanding of baptism at the moment of baptism (Acts 19), but my experience and opinion tells me that ones understanding of (or lack of) the importance of baptism at the moment of baptism doesn't negate the work of the baptism."
-Another great point!
Bill,
I have still not yet been able to quite interpret what took place in those waters but I don't have a good feeling about it!
"on a side note, as the one who baptized you...i would rather have you think that it was essential and necessary in order for you to make into heaven. that would make me feel more appreciated. just something to keep in mind."
-now that's funny!
Hey Dustin, all good points that I agree with. Just like to hear and know what others are thinking, which is why I asked those questions. Words like "essential" and "necessary" definitely complicate things. Here's a question for you or anyone else: Is it possible to teach in love that something (like baptism) is "essential" in the life of a believer without condemning everyone who does not follow that teaching to hell? Or by teaching that something is essential, does that then force you to condemn all others who oppose that idea or fail to follow it? I would say "yes" to the first and "no" to the second, but I don't know that I could make a good argument for that belief other than the thief on the cross (which you mentioned) serving as an example of God's grace trumping all. Still, the question could be asked, was he an exception to the standard or an illustration of a different one? The thought that he was an exception seems more problematic unless you factor in the obvious difficulties his situation presented.
The thing that I keep coming back to with regard to the question of baptism’s necessity is the sense of immediacy and urgency it’s given in Acts. You’re right about much of the teaching on salvation we see from Paul and others. Sometimes baptism is mentioned, other times it’s not. But in Acts we get to see people’s response to teaching and there are so many examples of people responding by being baptized, immediately coinciding with their decision to follow Christ – the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost; Simon and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8; Lydia, her household, the Philippian jailor and his family (which seemed to be in the middle of the night) in Acts 16; Crispus, his household and the Corinthians in Acts 18. I think the urgency we see makes it obvious that baptism is important and should be celebrated, but is that urgency also a reflection of something more? I wish it was more cut and dry.
The most puzzling passage to me is Acts 10:44-48 when Peter is at Cornelius’ house. The Holy Spirit comes on Cornelius and all those (Gentiles) listening as Peter is speaking. I’d say the presence of the Spirit would be an indication of salvation, yet Peter still asks “can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?” and “orders” (NIV) that they all be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Huh?? Hadn’t they already received the Holy Spirit? So again, why the need for this and the sense of urgency that it had to be done at that moment? I’d love to hear other thoughts on this.
Last thing real quick. Your question about “do people have to consciously KNOW that baptism is necessary for salvation” (if, in fact it is) is a good one. Again, I’d say no, it wouldn’t make baptism any less saving, but don’t know that I could offer a good argument as to why. I guess I’m going to just seriously trust in God’s grace to work through all this confusion.
Barton Stone
Alexander Campbell
Jesus Christ?
I in no way was offended by this post. I actually agree with you on your thoughts, and certainly, would stand behind you theologically. It sucks that the restoration movement has become its own denomination, though I see the differences between Restoration Movement and other denominations as healthy. The RM doesn't govern its churches with an iron fist making decisions on staffing, and practices. Its benefit for the church (at least here) has been a unified thought process on theology. You would be hard pressed to find any two people here on staff with the exact copy of their specific doctrine, but what you would find is a staff that is unified in the mission of the church. Everything we do is driven by the statement "Helping People Find their way back to God"
Even the way we hire staff is a little unique. We love to apprentice people and allow them the opportunity to grow in their leadership, and theology. In fact, I recently had a conversation with one of the lead pastors here who came on staff through leadership development not bible college, and his response to this same discussion was: "Before I came on staff I had never heard of the restoration movement" followed by "I believe in the movement of the church"
I appreciate that. The reason I am at this specific church is not that it is a restoration movement church, but the fact that I like it,I see God doing some great things here, and I like the freedom to minister without regulations and encumbrances (couldn't you just say burdens or limits?) Anyway, great discussion.
When faced with the baptism discussion I often ask a question rather than state an official belief. Why would someone not be baptized? The answer to that question usually reveals the heart or intention of the individual. So its not that someone has to in order to be saved, but rather that someone submits their life to Christ, their decisions should reflect that. It in that submission to Christ, they have freedom to live the life God sets before them.
Good response Nick, I appreciate that.
I thought you might find this restoration preacher's sermon on Unity in the Church insightful:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=65bd1e280187eabbb039
RestorationX - good stuff man! Could use to hear more sermons like that in the RM!
Post a Comment