What are we restoring?

[pilgrim42]

This is my first visit to this group. I've always been interested in church restoration. My question is, what is this religious movement trying to restore? It would seem that we would have to have a goal in mind.

Is the goal to restore the primitive church? I'm all for that, but the primitive church was very liturgical. Are we restoring liturgical programs? Are we restoring apostolic succession? What is the goal?

Ken

 

[greatdivide46]

I wouldn't say we are trying to restore the primitive church. I would say we are trying to restore the church to the way it was in the New Testament. Obviously we would modernize physical aspects such as buildings and things like that, but spiritually and in church government we try to emulate the church as its shown in the New Testament and particularly in the book of Acts.

 

[pilgrim42]

Do we really know enough about first century spirituality and church government to emulate them? The church was set up with Apostles (they died) and then Bishops and deacons. The Bishops were the church leaders and they were appointed by other bishops in apostolic succession. As the church grew there was a need to develop new ministries. Now we have Sunday School Superintendants; Ministers of Music; Evangelists; etc. Most offices may be optional, but every church needs a Bishop.
I think the early church was a lot more liturgical than what we might like to believe. Preaching probably wasn't the main focus of a meeting. I think might witness a lot of baptisms, foot washings, readings from the Old testament, testimonies, and appeals to relieve the sufferings of the needy. I'm sure that most of us would feel a little unsettled in a first century meeting.

Ken

 

[greatdivide46]

Do we really know enough about first century spirituality and church government to emulate them? The church was set up with Apostles (they died) and then Bishops and deacons. The Bishops were the church leaders and they were appointed by other bishops in apostolic succession. As the church grew there was a need to develop new ministries. Now we have Sunday School Superintendants; Ministers of Music; Evangelists; etc. Most offices may be optional, but every church needs a Bishop.
I think the early church was a lot more liturgical than what we might like to believe. Preaching probably wasn't the main focus of a meeting. I think might witness a lot of baptisms, foot washings, readings from the Old testament, testimonies, and appeals to relieve the sufferings of the needy. I'm sure that most of us would feel a little unsettled in a first century meeting.

Ken

Well, we can only emulate when we see in the New Testament concerning the New Testament church. And, you're right, their order of service was probably a lot different than most of ours are today. "Unsettled" may be putting it mildly

 

[JERRY C]

This is my first visit to this group. I've always been interested in church restoration. My question is, what is this religious movement trying to restore? It would seem that we would have to have a goal in mind.

Is the goal to restore the primitive church? I'm all for that, but the primitive church was very liturgical. Are we restoring liturgical programs? Are we restoring apostolic succession? What is the goal?

Ken

ok, I will bite.

1. "liturgical" your definition of this term? "ritual"?

way religious ceremonies are performed in church. the way that religious ceremonies are performed in church, including the words that the priest uses and the order of the different parts of the ceremony

this is very debatable; none of the pomp and ritual, of which you seem to be speaking, can be found reading Luke's record of the early church, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

2. "apostolic succession" most protestants deny the validity of this one?! so, will skip past, for now.

3. main question - "what is this religious movement trying to restore"

the simplest answer would be the "liturgy" and "apostolic succession" of which you speak.

The RM has taken many crooks and turns, being made up of fallible men and women. Some would lambast their "patternism" and I would amen much of their concern.

let me throw out a comment -- let's restore the faith, hope and love of the early believers.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is really, really difficult to be very liturgical in a living room of a house. Like it or not, the first-century church left no remains of church buildings of any sort and the bibiical record indicates clearly that Christians were meeting in houses. The only major exception is in Jerusalem where they also met for teaching from the apostles in Solomon's portico. It is virtually impossible to have a liturgical service in that environment.

Consider this - in a house there was no altar at all and most certainly not a sanctified altar as in present-day liturgical churches. The homes that did have altars at that time were of the upper Roman classses and the altars were to the household gods. There may have also been a resident priest to perform the proper rituals and sacrifices. This was utterly foreign to Jewish culture.

Liturgy without an altar is like a human without a living heart - dead and meaningless.

 

[relate4ever]

Restoring the principles removed a lot of religious culture! (That in all times)

 

[simplegospel1144]

In my view, become like Christ. What He said, what His responses are, everything Him by emptying ourselves. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, preach the gospel! Very simple.

 

[ModestGirlsRock]

Growing up in the Cofc, my understanding has been what we're trying to restore is what Jesus was teaching and by the authority of Christ, what the apostles and other male Church leaders in the Bible were teaching and practicing at the time after Christ's death. We want to rid ourselves of man-made rituals that came later (Martin Luther was the first to question many rituals, and he never even intended for a sect named after him to be created). Basically, we want to sincerely get back to the Bible and truly study it.

 

[seekingsister]

I used to attend an RM church, I am now Anglican.

Until I left I never knew about the history of the early church. So how do you guys reconcile things like the Didache and other 1st century Christian writings? For example the Didache says

- baptize in flowing water, yet many RM baptize in tubs and standing water
- pray the Lords Prayer three times daily
- appoint bishops and deacons

I don't see how early Christians could have gotten these things so wrong, but 18th century Scots and Americans found the real answers.

 

[greatdivide46]

I used to attend an RM church, I am now Anglican.

I'm just the opposite. I used to attend an Anglican church. I left the Anglican church to attend and become a member of a RM church.

Until I left I never knew about the history of the early church. So how do you guys reconcile things like the Didache and other 1st century Christian writings? For example the Didache says

- baptize in flowing water, yet many RM baptize in tubs and standing water
- pray the Lords Prayer three times daily
- appoint bishops and deacons

I don't see how early Christians could have gotten these things so wrong, but 18th century Scots and Americans found the real answers.

Again, I'm just the opposite. I never new about the history of the early church until I joined the RM church. What the RM churches are trying to do, not always successfully, is emulate the church as its seen in the book of Acts and still stay true to our culture. There is nothing in the New Testament nor in our culture that says we must baptized in flowing water. There is nothing in the New Testament nor in our culture that dictates we must pray the Lords Prayer three times a day. Virtually all of the RM churches I am aware of do appoint elders and deacons, unlike some other protestant churches who only have deacons.

 

[seekingsister]

I'm just the opposite. I used to attend an Anglican church. I left the Anglican church to attend and become a member of a RM church.


Again, I'm just the opposite. I never new about the history of the early church until I joined the RM church. What the RM churches are trying to do, not always successfully, is emulate the church as its seen in the book of Acts and still stay true to our culture. There is nothing in the New Testament nor in our culture that says we must baptized in flowing water. There is nothing in the New Testament nor in our culture that dictates we must pray the Lords Prayer three times a day. Virtually all of the RM churches I am aware of do appoint elders and deacons, unlike some other protestant churches who only have deacons.

There's also nothing saying that the Book of Acts is the model for Christian living.

The Didache (using it again) is thought to be contemporary to the Gospel of Mark. The same church (what is now Roman Catholic/Orthodox) that selected the books that are in the Bible also had practices and traditions that were occurring at the same time some of these books were being written and certainly when the Bible was put together.

There are liturgies dating back to AD 60, that is pretty close to when Jesus lived. This is not surprising because the Jewish religious practice was liturgical as well and most of the early Christians were Jews. So you can argue that liturgical traditions are closer to what Jesus would have understood.

And the Lord's Prayer - well Jesus specifically said we should pray like that; in the RM services I never once heard the Lord's Prayer and it was not emphasized in Bible studies either. Anglican services and prayers mirror the Psalms and the Lord's Prayer, how much more Biblical can you get?

I have many other issues with RM, including lack of true teaching on God's grace, a belief that man has the power to stop sinning on his own when it's the Holy Spirit that gives us the power to do so, that Christians baptized as infants or in other churches are not real Christians, and the list goes on.

I am actually an evangelical Anglican so am pretty far from the high ceremony, but there are things I have learned that have changed my mind on the rigid version of Christianity taught by RM. Even my RM relatives who came to a service with me admitted that my church is teaching Bible-based principles and in fact commented on the deep Biblical knowledge of the priest. But officially to RM because we pray out loud in a script, that means we are not Christians?

 

[greatdivide46]

There's also nothing saying that the Book of Acts is the model for Christian living.

This is true. That's because the main emphasis of the book is history. Nevertheless, I do think we should model the modern church after the one depicted in the book of Acts insofar as it's possible within our culture.

And the Lord's Prayer - well Jesus specifically said we should pray like that; in the RM services I never once heard the Lord's Prayer and it was not emphasized in Bible studies either. Anglican services and prayers mirror the Psalms and the Lord's Prayer, how much more Biblical can you get?

Yes, Jesus said we should pray like that. He did not say we should pray those exact words. I believe Jesus gave the Lord's prayer as a guide for what we should include in our prayers. He didn't give it as a prayer that we should repeat word for word. Don't misunderstand, though, I don't think there's anything wrong with repeating any Scripture word for word as a prayer, but it seems to me that after a while that could become completely meaningless to the person repeating the words.

I have many other issues with RM, including lack of true teaching on God's grace, a belief that man has the power to stop sinning on his own when it's the Holy Spirit that gives us the power to do so, that Christians baptized as infants or in other churches are not real Christians, and the list goes on.

Your description of the RM churches you know of sounds nothing like the ones I grew up in. I first learned of God's grace in a RM church. No RM church I've ever attended has taught that man has the power to stop sinning on his own. Nor have I ever heard anyone in a RM church teach that people in other churches are not real Christians. However, that's not to say that there aren't RM churches that teach those things. There probably are -- I just haven't found any.

 

[seekingsister]

Your description of the RM churches you know of sounds nothing like the ones I grew up in. I first learned of God's grace in a RM church. No RM church I've ever attended has taught that man has the power to stop sinning on his own. Nor have I ever heard anyone in a RM church teach that people in other churches are not real Christians. However, that's not to say that there aren't RM churches that teach those things. There probably are -- I just haven't found any.

Count yourself lucky then. There are hundreds of websites for ex-members of Church of Christ, like this:

Legalistic Church : I Am An Ex Member of Church of Christ Story & Experience

Here is another testimony - I didn't write it but I could have, reminds me so much of my experience: Positives of grace in contrast to legalism | California Letter

On the other hand I was equally ignorant of the concept of grace. I had never heard a sermon devoted wholly to explaining and teaching this way of salvation. From time to time some sermons or talks made reference to the concept, but these were usually to downplay its significance. The emphasis was upon what man must do to be saved, not upon what God has done for us. When Ephesians 2:8-9 was considered or quoted it was quickly nullified by “but” and indicating that the “works” to which Paul referred were works related to the Law of Moses. We have a new code of law to which we must comply in our works if we want to be saved. Our salvation is dependent upon our achieving it at least partially through our own abilities.

RM churches believe that believer's baptism by immersion is necessary for the remission of sins. So if you are in an infant baptism church, how can you have been validly baptized by RM standards? Church of Christ rebaptizes Catholics/Anglicans/etc so they don't accept their baptism as valid. That to me says they do not think Catholics etc are Christians.

 

[greatdivide46]

RM churches believe that believer's baptism by immersion is necessary for the remission of sins. So if you are in an infant baptism church, how can you have been validly baptized by RM standards? Church of Christ rebaptizes Catholics/Anglicans/etc so they don't accept their baptism as valid. That to me says they do not think Catholics etc are Christians.

Yes, RM churches believe that believer's baptism by immersion is necessary for the remission of sins. They believe this because it is taught in the Bible in such verses as Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. I was sprinkled as an infant in the Anglican church. It did nothing for me and I didn't even remember it. Therefore, when I joined a RM church it was my desire to be baptized, since I couldn't remember having ever done it before. The RM churches I'm familiar with do not consider someone who has not been baptized to not be a Christian. They simply leave that up to God since those people have not complied with His conditions for salvation.

 

[mrs94]

We would do well to remember that the early church was originally filled with Jews. If you want to know how they practiced, read the Old Testament...then compare it with the New.

 

[Gozreht]

Growing up in the C of C/RM I know what both sides here are talking about. Yes, there is a huge legalistic side to eh RM. I believe though that stems from the idea that we need to go back to the original Church practices and therefore many congregations made "rules" for the body. However in today's RM there is a more open eye and heart and most do not adhere to "if you are catholic or baptist or lutheran, you are going to hell". One of the big slogans if you will of today is we are Christians only, not the only Christians. Then again, some thing sin the Bible do seem clear. Jesus said some things are proper to do. Faith is not only hearing but doing.

Mrs94, good point. From where I have been the RM is the closest to that but unfortunately still has many Christianisms and feel separated from our Jewish roots. That is a shame.

 

[Argonath]

Grace and peace to you all.
I spent the last 8 years of my childhood in a RM church. I went to an RM Bible college, and I was ordained in a Church of Christ as a minister of the gospel. I have spent quite a bit of time and energy studying the Church, its history and the various views of what it is.

I have come to believe that the NT Church was not what many RM folks imagine it was, and that it should not be restored.

RM folks usually freely confess that they are trying to restore the Church found in the NT, but they cannot defend this goal from the scriptures themselves. Most RM folks never ask themselves if this is something God wants us to do. They simply assume that, in the interest of purity and simplicity, this should be our goal.

The scriptures DO call us to "seek the ancient paths," but those paths do need lead to RM churches. The ancient paths lead us to a pattern of worship that God Himself established and means for us to follow, even in the NT.

Many RM leaders assume that we are in a better place to determine what apostolic churches looked like than people who lived in the first and second centuries. They have been taught (and continue to teach others) that the Church turned heretical and abandoned the true and simple gospel towards the end of the 1st century.

The Church understood itself as true Israel in the NT. They were very much connected with their roots and understood that God was not throwing out all that He had so carefully created in the OT.

Early Christian worship was a mixture of elements. Israel had always understood that God wanted things done in worship in a certain way. But there was worship in the sanctuary in Jerusalem, and there was worship in their local community. Temple worship was the true worship ordained by God, but local worship was also important.

The earliest NT worship continued to be at the temple in Jerusalem. But it underwent great transformation between AD 33 and 70. During this in-between-time, the Church was trained by the Holy Spirit to understand how the OT system was a copy and a shadow of the new. We can see this throughout the NT, especially in Galatians and Hebrews.

The Church in this period gradually began to realize that the patterns of OT worship were to be followed in the NT but with greater understanding of how Christ fulfilled the types and images. Thus the three-fold structure of sin offering, ascension offering, and fellowship offering became the essence of NT worship. Confession of sin and profession of our forgiveness in Christ, the lamb of God, had to be done BEFORE we could be cut up and arranged on the altar as an ascension offering. The ascension offering, the early church understood, symbolized the orderly ascension of the sacrificed believer into Christ and thus to God Himself. Only then could we eat the fellowship meal with God, after we recognized our standing in Christ as forgiven sinners and had the cutting edge of the Word applied to our lives. Having ascended into heaven as the ascension offering, we could have a fellowship meal with Him.

The Church revealed in the Book of Acts is not yet fully aware of how Christ changed the nature the worship. There certainly is NOT an abandoning of OT forms in the name of some kind of democratic and simplistic sentimentalism.

By the time the temple is destroyed in AD 70, the Church sees itself as the temple and offers spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God.

Looking to the Book of Acts to find a pattern for worship is like looking at a 4th grade textbook to figure out what WWII was like. It just isn't all there. And nothing in the scriptures themselves tell us to do exactly as they did. We should no more want to emulate them than we should pattern our adult lives after the practices of junior high kids.

 

[Argonath]

If we want to restore true NT Christianity, we need to understand how the OT shapes and informs the identity of the NT Church. That is something that most RM pastors and elders have no idea about.

 

[michaelG1949]

i've heard things about rm churches that i've never experienced and i have been a member for over 50 years. i did go to a CoC noninstrumental once and they refused me communion. we gather together onthe first day of the week as has been mentiomed. we also recognize that the seventh day is the sabbath and supposed to be a day of rest. the first christians were jews, they did meet in the synagogues and temple on the jewish day of worship, as jewspreaching Christ. this was considered blasphemy so it didn't take long for them not to be welcome. in acts they also met daily. we have that option open but its not as well attended as sunday. the NT church had the task of following Jesus last command in Math. and we encourage people to become disciples, imitatng Jesus in our actions and hearts, not just sunday pew sitters. we also had to change our name so as not to be confused with the liberal world CoC. we believe we should never have to tell someone were christians, they should no by our actions and the love of Jesus in our hearts.