Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (10:00 am)

   AM Worship (11:00 am)

   PM Worship (3:00 pm)

 Thursday

   Bible Classes (7:00 PM)

Location

Piedmont Family YMCA

442 Westfield Road

Charlottesville, VA 22901
Click Here for Specific Directions

Review of Chapter 4

RESTORATION? THE VERY IDEA

By Terry W. Benton

LaGard effectively argues the connection of history and authority. History shows precedent with authority, and to dismiss the precedents of history is to lose guidance and direction. Examples have a way of demonstrating how a principle may be lawfully carried out. The example of Jesus has a bearing on the proper interpretation of His principles. Therefore, history (examples recorded) and authority work together to give us guidance.

LaGard says that "Restoration thinking has two primary foundations - authority and history"(p.66). However, we do not see these as two separate things, but one thing. Authority is historically revealed, acted out in time by those who first had direct divine guidance, and setting example in their path. Authority and history are not two separate things. The original recipients of direct guidance and authority (the apostles and prophets) set that direct guidance into actions that are historically preserved to become our one source for determining the divine will. Commands, statements, and examples are all part of our one authoritative source. All that is not revealed in the Bible is not authoritative in service to God, and only the revealed history of God’s will in His early disciples is authoritative history for his disciples today.

Good Argument, Bad Application

On page 69, LaGard sets the stage for his house-church-common-meal-communion-argument by rightly arguing that "What appears to be innovative worship style might actually be nothing more than an attempt to turn back the clock and restore a style of worship more in line with New Testament practice". While the argument is a correct, legitimate argument, the application he will make of this argument, at least in later chapters of his book, are not correct or legitimate.

He says (p.69) that some things are "renovation, not innovation." For example, he says, if a congregation affiliated with the Christian Church were to stop using the instrument, this may seem "innovative" to those who were traditionally use to the instrumental music, but actually it would only be "renovative" (restoring the worship to original form). This argument , of course, is given to lay the foundation for consideration for the house-church-common-meal-communion position to be considered as renovative rather than a new "innovation." LaGard, clearly, is aiming at renovating the way communion is commonly practiced in most modern churches of Christ.

He believes that it is getting back to biblical precedent to take the Supper in a different setting, in a different manner, and that this will make the difference in a real needed step of restoration. That needed step, to him, is to dismantle local churches and move them into homes in which to eat a common meal and from that meal serve the communion emblems in larger portions. When LaGard gets around to actually showing the biblical evidence for his "renovation", we will show some assumptions that he brings to the texts involved, and we will demonstrate some flaws in the assumptions.

From Expedient To Less Expedient

A legitimate, scriptural practice does not need to be "renovated" with something less expedient than the expedient practices employed. The Christian should always shoot for the most expedient things, not the less helpful things. Some things are more helpful than others, and the better should always be chosen over the lesser. The rule of law is to choose the more expedient actions that best accommodate the carrying out of the divine will.(1 Cor.6:12; 10:18). A good, scriptural practice does not need "renovation" by replacing it with a less expedient practice.

Inexpedient Renovation

LaGard is laying the ground-work for inexpedient renovation. It is like stripping down a Cadillac in order to make a go-cart. It is not worth the effort if what you come out with is far inferior to what you started with. He says "this chapter undoubtedly is the most important in the book." It is definitely a good chapter. LaGard does a great job in showing the need for restoring the ancient order of things. It is wonderful to see him express so well the biblical precedents of restoring the ancient wells, rebuilding the walls, and doing things according to the original pattern. It is his application, later in the book, that concerns me. Seeing a good argument go bad in order to strip a Cadillac down to a go-cart is what makes me feel somewhat nauseated.

Generalities Generally Discredit The Generalizer

On page 73, LaGard makes a general assessment, a good assessment for individual reflection, but stated in too general of terms to be accurate. He says, "Ironically, it is we who continue to worry more about whether we are doctrinally restored than about whether we are spiritually restored." Who is LaGard speaking for? The best LaGard could do is say that he, personally, has been more concerned about doctrinal restoration than spiritual restoration. He could guess that others probably were just like him, but he has made a sweeping indictment of every Christian of restoration convictions. I do not know how there can be a separation of doctrinal and spiritual restoration. The doctrine of Christ demands heart, soul, and mind. Without spiritual reconciliation with Christ, there will be no doctrinal restoration of the ancient order. The implication of LaGard is that there has been some kind of artificial distinction that will only be brought into combined doctrinal and spiritual restoration when we get away from church buildings and start a home-served meal-fashion serving of the Lord’s Supper. 

Spinning

His accusation is full of spin. He spins that taking a small amount of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine in lined pews in a building is somehow lacking in spiritual intimacy. He spins it this way because it has been his experience to put little heart and soul into the activity (his own admission). He should have repented instead of trying to change the external way in which the Supper is distributed. He assumes that it is the manner of taking the Supper, rather than the real meditations of the heart that make the difference. This is nothing but spin because one can eat the meal in the home with the same heartlessness it is engaged in the building. Neither the setting, nor the amount, makes the difference. The ONLY thing that makes the difference is what is brought in the heart to the occasion. Eating larger portions around a table in a house can become traditional and heartless too. Will it not, in time, be what LaGard is calling "doctrinal restoration" without necessarily being "spiritual" restoration? Anything, even legitimate things, can become heartless habit. But, it is not heartless for all just because it may become heartless in some.

Allowed Facilities Versus Divine Appointment

The very idea of restoration is in getting back to the original order. The originally approved order is that which is distinguishable from facility. Some things are mere facility. They merely assist or facilitate a command or principle. Whatever facilitates the divine order is allowed by the divine order itself. For example, the divine call to Paul to "come over to Macedonia" allowed for Paul to choose the best facilities(chariot, ship, donkey, etc.) to make the trip. Whatever his choice, it was a facility. The facility itself is a human arrangement that is chosen because it facilitates a divine appointment. One cannot argue that because God did not mention a ship, that therefore a ship was not authorized. The facility is used to help carry out what God DID command, not what He didn’t command. A facility is not a facility if it is used to carry out mere human desires and not the divine will. We can facilitate divine appointments or commands, but we cannot add human desires to the word of God and then facilitate those human appointments. The facility is rightly used to help carry out the divine appointment.

Similarly, Noah was commanded to "build" an ark. The choice of tools was up to Noah. Whatever facilitated the carrying out of the divine appointment was general authority by its very nature. One could not argue that a hammer and saw was not authorized because God did not specifically mention them. Facilities are generally authorized by whatever command, statement, or approved example by which the divine will is determined. Pews and communion trays facilitate. They need not be specifically mentioned. Gathering (and thus a gathering place) are together authorized. Communion (and thus communion trays) are together authorized. Taking the communion is a divine appointment. Whatever facilities expediently help us carry out the divine appointment becomes inherently authorized. Facilities may improve and even change with time, place, situation, and culture. For example, Paul could now drive a car or fly a plane if these better facilitate him in carrying out the divine appointment. One is not "restoring" the original order by insisting that only the same facilities be used today (fallacy of some Mennonite groups) that were used in the first century. LaGard will try to show that homes were often used for fellowship meetings. But, this was facility in time of poverty and persecution. An upper room at Troas was facility. To argue that restoration demands that we meet in an upper room is to confuse facility with divine appointment. Restoration is not optional. Taking the Supper is not optional. But, the facilities are optional. It is mere spin when a man casts a facility in a negative light, and spins another facility in a more positive light. It is like arguing that the upper room for a large gathering is inferior to a smaller room in a house when both may properly facilitate a larger or smaller group according as need and opportunity provides.

Comparing Modern and Ancient Facilities

It is like arguing that an upper room was more conducive to taking the supper than a garage, a rented hall, or a facility with pews. The facilities accommodate, but they do not make a thing scriptural or unscriptural. The facilities by which a congregation meets and participates in communion can vary from place to place. Lined pews are just as scriptural as circular tables and chairs. Both are facilities and should serve to accommodate whatever size group is meeting. Neither facility is what "restores" a group in doctrine or spirit. A school house may facilitate meeting, teaching, and a place to commune in the Lord’s Supper, but a school is not part of restoring the divine order. Even though the church at Ephesus met at the school of Tyrannus for two years (Acts 19), the facility was not a thing we need to restore or mimic. A facility is not a necessarily exclusive part of the divine appointment. It is an "allowable" thing, not a prescribed thing. A ship was allowed for Paul to go to Macedonia. It is not a prescribed thing. A donkey is allowed, but not prescribed. Similarly, if Paul had lived in our day, a car or plane would be allowed, though not prescribed.

Thorny Issues

LaGard mentions correctly that there are "thorny issues"(p.79) in trying to separate apostolic doctrine and practice from mere cultural matters. This is true. By "thorny" we mean issues that are difficult and painful to deal with. They are not impossible, but they take lots of care, prayer, and study. LaGard mentions "the wearing of veils" as an example. Footwashing, and kissing as a form of greeting are similar issues. We have to dig deeper and explore whether a human custom is employed and/or regulated by a divine principle. Does one "restore" the ancient order by washing feet? Or, has one merely imposed a cultural matter as if it were a divine mandate for all time? Was washing feet a new divine law for a culture that had no real dirty feet? Or, was washing feet a culturally needed act of service? Is it the feet-washing that needs to be restored?, or, is it the lowly acts of service that needs to be restored? Would Jesus have chosen the act of foot-washing in a modern context of shoes, socks, and less dusty means of transportation? It seems that this is discernible. Jesus would not have washed clean feet. Clean feet do not "need" washing. But, there are plenty of other acts of hospitality and "need" that we can and should address. The spirit of service is the divine principle that we must seek to restore to our lives of service to God and man. We do not need to restore worship to upper-rooms, schools, nor houses, nor do we need to restore foot-washing. These are mere facilities.

The Changing Nature of Facilities

Facilities vary from time and place. A hand-saw in Noah’s day may be a gas-powered chain-saw in our day if we were commanded to build an ark. If we were commanded to build an ark, we would be allowed to choose our own facilities as seem best to us. Trays for communion and pews facilitate large gatherings. Each must examine himself and take that bread (regardless of facilities used) in a worthy manner. Taking the Supper is a divine appointment, and we restore the New Testament order to our lives, or our lives to the New Testament order, when we partake of the Supper. But, in a house, an upper-room, a school, or in a purchased building is mere facility of local circumstance and need, and should not be considered necessary, in and of themselves, to divine obedience.

Conclusion

Since this was LaGard’s "most important" chapter in his book, I felt that it was important to look up the road a little to see where he is going with the argument. The argument for restoration and of doing all according to divine precedent and pattern is absolutely correct. The direction LaGard will take his argument is well off the mark of the divine will. Thus, we urge the reader to give even this otherwise good chapter some cautious thought.

Terry W. Benton

Terry's Website and E-Mail Address

www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net