I recently finished coursework for a class I am taking called "Theology of the Restoration Movement," which was an excellent class and there was TONS of reading involved. This post borrows liberally from North's excellent RM history, Union in Truth. If you haven't read it, do.
Probably the biggest thing I discovered through all of our reading was the continual and everywhere-evident wrestling match our brotherhood is engaged in over balancing the influence of the Holy Spirit with the authority of Scripture. You can see it in the jabs the Restoration Herald takes at the Christian Standard (e.g., I read in the RH a vitriolic and comical criticism of an editorial in the CS about a “definite calling to ministry,” which the RH writer completely discounted because the CS writer could not or would not be more particular about “how” he was called. Are we, as a movement, so convinced that the Holy Spirit can not prick a man’s conscience toward action, as to jest about it? I am afraid I am not that convinced of the Holy Spirit’s impotence.) or in the resistance to non-thru-the-Bible Sunday School offerings (“Why do we need to study Larry Burkett? The Scripture teaches everything about money that is profitable for Christians.” Again, I am afraid I am not so convinced of Burkett’s lack of inspiration that I will recommend a single mother wait until we get to the part about keeping her out of the poor house). The three issues that plagued the early Restoration Movement in this way were multi-church organizations (missionary societies, Bible societies, etc.), located, salaried preachers, and musical instruments in worship – all issues of “Biblical authorization.”
I think this issue is easily described in the tension between two Restoration Movement slogans: “Where the Scripture speaks, we speak; where the Scripture is silent, we are silent,” and “In doctrine, unity; in opinion, liberty; in all things, charity.” Can we really live both of these slogans? Can we balance this tension? The tension stems from our definition of silence; if the Scripture is silent, do we claim no authority or do we claim nothing at all? Does silence imply liberty or prohibition? It is this central concern and the tension it creates that tore our movement in two in 1906.
Perhaps the most difficult implication is that, in order to claim that silence denotes prohibition, we must discard the prompting of the Holy Spirit and the liberty necessary to follow it. Do the current proponents of the Restoration Movement so wish to silence the Holy Spirit that they would deny His guidance in the absence of clear instruction? Does doing so qualify as liberalism? While I am not sure that anything we studied in this class provides a clear cut answer to these questions, it has definitely helped me to better frame the questions so that I can wrestle with them myself.
I frequently run into direct application of this issue within the framework of my position as discipleship minister and as a small group leader. Our congregation is a heterogeneous hodge-podge of different religious backgrounds, attitudes, and doctrines, all vying for position. Standing our doctrinal ground (“in doctrine, unity”) requires an understanding of the differences and I believe those differences often stem from our understanding of the work and influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and our lost neighbor.
Probably the biggest thing I discovered through all of our reading was the continual and everywhere-evident wrestling match our brotherhood is engaged in over balancing the influence of the Holy Spirit with the authority of Scripture. You can see it in the jabs the Restoration Herald takes at the Christian Standard (e.g., I read in the RH a vitriolic and comical criticism of an editorial in the CS about a “definite calling to ministry,” which the RH writer completely discounted because the CS writer could not or would not be more particular about “how” he was called. Are we, as a movement, so convinced that the Holy Spirit can not prick a man’s conscience toward action, as to jest about it? I am afraid I am not that convinced of the Holy Spirit’s impotence.) or in the resistance to non-thru-the-Bible Sunday School offerings (“Why do we need to study Larry Burkett? The Scripture teaches everything about money that is profitable for Christians.” Again, I am afraid I am not so convinced of Burkett’s lack of inspiration that I will recommend a single mother wait until we get to the part about keeping her out of the poor house). The three issues that plagued the early Restoration Movement in this way were multi-church organizations (missionary societies, Bible societies, etc.), located, salaried preachers, and musical instruments in worship – all issues of “Biblical authorization.”
I think this issue is easily described in the tension between two Restoration Movement slogans: “Where the Scripture speaks, we speak; where the Scripture is silent, we are silent,” and “In doctrine, unity; in opinion, liberty; in all things, charity.” Can we really live both of these slogans? Can we balance this tension? The tension stems from our definition of silence; if the Scripture is silent, do we claim no authority or do we claim nothing at all? Does silence imply liberty or prohibition? It is this central concern and the tension it creates that tore our movement in two in 1906.
Perhaps the most difficult implication is that, in order to claim that silence denotes prohibition, we must discard the prompting of the Holy Spirit and the liberty necessary to follow it. Do the current proponents of the Restoration Movement so wish to silence the Holy Spirit that they would deny His guidance in the absence of clear instruction? Does doing so qualify as liberalism? While I am not sure that anything we studied in this class provides a clear cut answer to these questions, it has definitely helped me to better frame the questions so that I can wrestle with them myself.
I frequently run into direct application of this issue within the framework of my position as discipleship minister and as a small group leader. Our congregation is a heterogeneous hodge-podge of different religious backgrounds, attitudes, and doctrines, all vying for position. Standing our doctrinal ground (“in doctrine, unity”) requires an understanding of the differences and I believe those differences often stem from our understanding of the work and influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and our lost neighbor.
2 comments:
Hi Ed. Nice blog! BTW - my two cents on the argument about whether "silence" is permissive or prohibitive is simply this: Silence is neither, or it could be both. Permission is permission, and prohibition is prohibition, but silence does not do either one, at least not by itself. This is why we MUST have room for varying opinions! This is a large arena for exercising our patience with one another over things about which the Bible is silent.
Indeed. Maybe that's why there's silence in the first place - to test the "in all things, charity" element. That tension between freedom and obedience is where we live and how we respond to the tension says a lot about who we are in Christ.
Post a Comment