Any time one comes to a study or discussion of the Bible, one brings “baggage.” No one begins with a perfectly clean slate. We must be honest about our preconceptions, traditions, pre-understandings. This article suggests five possible pieces of baggage–reactionism, separatism, legalism, misunderstanding how the Bible communicates, and of more recent vintage, increasing indifference to what the Bible communicates.
Restorationism often finds initial roots in reaction against particular misunderstandings or abuses. When this occurs, the shape of a Restoration movement or church, and the faith of those involved, is influenced by the thing reacted against. While this may not be always the case, it at least raises the possibility that our “faith” may not be as pure or as primitive as we often assume.
Historically, many Restorationists have had a tendency toward separatism, if not an outright sectarianism. Thus, many Restorationist churches still operate on the assumption that every doctrinal question is ultimately about who remains in fellowship and who is excluded, including who is going to heaven and who is not. This results in a divisive attitude, even among brothers.
Many Restoration churches have a legalistic attitude about or understanding of the Bible. Such treat the Bible akin to the IRS code with God as the great Heavenly Auditor who sharpens his pencil and puts on his glasses to look carefully for some technicality on the basis of which he can deny us eternal life. While God’s revelation of himself contains instructions to help us fulfill his purpose in our lives and become like him, the gospel of Scripture reveals a God who has gone to great sacrificial lengths to save his rebellious human creation, even to the extent of giving his Son for us.
Our Restoration heritage includes those who have misunderstood and misused Scripture by prooftexting; thus our baggage includes a history of incomplete, insufficient, and even bad and baseless arguments. Some have made the Bible says things it does not. This is related to separatism and legalism, but is a distinct problem.
In reaction against these things, some have in the last twenty to twenty-five years developed a spirit of indifferentism. Mark Shipp calls this the Doctrine of Ecclesiological Indifference. This attitude steers one into the opposite ditch, ultimately arriving at the conclusion that it must not matter very much what the church does when it assembles. Wearied by our past, we ride the pendulum to the opposite extreme.
What is an appropriate understanding? A starting point would be the agree that the New Testament is our guide regarding the nature of Christian discipleship and the shared life of the church. This suggests that we seek to understand the aims of the apostles and the New Testament writers, and that we consider what kind of communities the apostles were trying to establish and nurture, and how the forms of the Christian life and the Christian church functions to further those aims.