The Needed Restoration

By Roy Loney

[Page 1]

     "We must become restoration minded" is the shibboleth of a very vocal group today. Practically all they say and write is along that line. The dictionary defines "restoration" as "putting back into original form; putting back into an unimpaired or much improved form; to reestablish an object as it was at the first." To illustrate, several months ago I was in the Missouri Ozarks, and a brother took me to the "Shepherd of the Hills Country." I saw all the old cabins which figured in the famous story. All were the original structures except one, the shepherd's cabin. A sign read: "This is a reproduction of the original cabin." In size, shape and architectural design it was exactly like the cabin that had been the home of the old shepherd.

     The church in the centuries immediately following Christianity departed from the original faith. The many changes made from the second to the twelfth century left little semblance of the church built by Christ through the work of the inspired apostles. Throughout the "Dark Ages" what was called the church bore no resemblance whatever to the one we find in the New Testament. The conceit of men played havoc with the simplicity of work and worship revealed by inspiration. No one could question the need of returning to the apostolic faith. From the sixteenth century onward, various men broke with Roman tradition and advocated a return to the teaching of Christ and the apostles. The plea by Campbell, Scott, Stone, and many others to "return to the old paths," left an enduring imprint on religious history. The more I read of the work and faith of those men the more I am impressed by their courage and zeal. I sincerely believe they laid the foundation for a complete return to the "faith of our fathers." Our debt to them is incalculable.

     Now we are being told today they only started the restoration, but did not finish it, that we must go onward and complete their work. A leading exponent of the New Restoration wrote me sometime ago and stated "I am made to doubt if there really are any true Christians today." This implies there was yet so much to learn of revealed religion, we fall too short of truth to become God's children. I find that hard to believe. I have no evidence to produce such a belief. Belief must be founded on facts, not mere opinions.

     My confidence in God impels me to believe he was both wise and good enough to give us a book that even the common people today can understand and obey just as did the common people of the days of our Lord (Mark 12:37). Christ's teaching was not so mythical or profound it could not be understood. I believe that any person of good will, with an honest

[Page 2]

heart, can find the way to God through reading His word. God gave the Bible to mankind for a definite, specific purpose, that we all might be "wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus," and I cannot believe His word is so difficult that after nineteen hundred years, man is still groping in darkness with insufficient light to guide him back to God. I admit with Peter there are "some things hard to be understood" but when it comes to the deep things of God, my conviction is that thousands can truly bask in "the full assurance of faith."

     If there is to be a restoration, it is imperative that we have a pattern by which it is to be made. Those who built a reproduction of the shepherd's cabin in the Ozarks, had accurate knowledge of the shape, material and size of the first building, and built accordingly. It is agreed by all that the pattern to be restored is revealed in the New Testament. The first congregation composing Christ's Church was the one in Jerusalem, hence, the old cry has often been made, "Back to Jerusalem." Now one of the most vocal of the new Restorers, has said in print, "There was a vast difference between the church at Jerusalem and the church at Antioch," implying that churches could differ and still be acceptable to the Lord. If that is true, which I do not admit, then just what is the pattern to be restored? The brother quoted above was asked to show from the scriptures what the vast differences were between Jerusalem and Antioch, and if they existed with approval of the Lord. He has not, to my knowledge, defined those differences yet.

     If the churches in apostolic times differed in teaching and practice, I repeat, what is the pattern by which we rebuild the restored church? You cannot restore a building unless you have a pattern of the old one. Is the pattern Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, or Athens? Shall we use the Jerusalem pattern at St. Louis, the Antioch at Kansas City, and Corinth at Hartford? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but I want to understand the reasoning of those who presume to lead us wandering Israelites to the land of promise. Nothing new has been taught by these "restorers." Their teaching is what I have read long ago. What new truths have been discovered so the restoration might be completed? I know of none. In some cases they are merely accepting teaching they spurned a few years ago with all the energy of devoted hearts. The land that flows with milk and honey is not yet in view.

     Restoration calls for a unified belief in a universal law of action and conduct religiously, yet these "reformers" are going farther than anyone of this generation, known to me, in pleading for tolerance among those who differ on vital matters of faith and practice. Will the restoration lead us to the old Union Sunday School practice of agreeing not to disagree, and to blandly tolerate all beliefs, just so we are honest and sincere in our beliefs? That practice and position is the very foundation of modern denominationalism. Sectarianism is built on the false premise "We cannot all see alike," therefore, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." The Restoration unity pattern is not the toleration of many and diverse beliefs, but the merging together of all that they may be one in Christ, to "speak the same thing, to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).

     Our unity must approximate that unity which exists between Christ and God, not the union that prevails in Billy Graham's meetings, which unity ends with the meetings. Jesus would not have prayed that we might be united as he and his Father, nor would Paul have commanded unity of speech and heart unless such a unity is possible. Do we have authority from God to advocate a bond of union less restrictive than that enjoined by the scriptures? It is still true that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." The institutional advocates never can find a common ground of unity with those whose conscience and training compel them to oppose these man-made organizations. The class and anti-class brethren have too little in common to ever accomplish a

[Page 3]

workable union that will be pleasing to the Lord. The issue can only be resolved at the point of a "thus saith the Lord." The many cuppers and the one cuppers can walk in unity until they get to the casket of the Lord's body, then they spill the blood of our Lord in fraternal strife. O Lord, how long? A temporary truce will avail little until convictions are changed and hearts humbled. How can such be brought about? Regardless of the seeming impossibility of reconciling such diverse elements true servants of the Lord should not be discouraged in contending for His cause. Watch for our next article.

REPLY TO ABOVE

     There is a difference between the church of God and the cabin of the "Shepherd of the Hills." The church never ceased to exist. The spiritual body of Jesus never died. The church was rent by schisms, and distressed by heresies. The original cabin of Harold Bell Wright's shepherd was destroyed. Men later built another cabin like the first. But it is not the first one. It may be in size, shape and design, exactly like the original one, but it is not the original one, and never can become so. It will always be another, a second cabin. That is not true of the church. It would be useless to write a "History of the Church through the Ages," if the church was not in existence through the ages.

     The task of spiritual restoration is that of the man who restores an ancient masterpiece of art. His work is not to paint another pieture like the first. There is a great difference between an original and a reproduction. His task is to renovate and remove the accumulations and accretions of the centuries since the painting was made, and thus restore it to its original state. Men like Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others, labored at this task. Their tools were imperfect and they probably did the best they could. As our beloved brother Loney points out, later men, with better equipment, Campbell, Scott and Stone, laid the foundation for a complete return. But a foundation is not any more a complete return than it is a complete building. It was my misunderstanding of this fact, which for years kept me from really building on that foundation.

     Alexander Campbell knew he did not have all of the answers. He declared that if he attempted to enter into the consideration of all the problems, "we should have to launch upon a wide and tempestuous ocean, for which our slender bark is not at this time sufficiently equipped. This may yet deserve the construction of a larger vessel in a more propitious season." Some of us feel that we should at least begin work on construction of that large vessel instead of merely sitting along the shore in Bro. Campbell's frail and slender bark. Perhaps our children after us may be able to discover new horizons beyond our limited vision.

     I do not agree with the view that there may be no true Christians today. It could well be that, as God looks at us, there are many more than we realize. Of course, the new covenant scriptures have not changed. They are no plainer today than they have been in nineteen centuries. It is not a question of whether we can understand the teaching of our Lord and be saved. I do not think there has ever been a time when men could not understand. The question is whether we perfectly understand God's working and purpose, while every one else is in total ignorance and blindness. I am free to admit that I have much to learn and humbly confess my intellectual shortcomings in the spiritual realm. The fact that my knowledge is so deficient and yet I have such an eagerness to know, makes me charitable and tolerant toward the sincere struggling thousands who may not even have had the opportunity to learn as much as myself. I am a kindred soul with them, for we are climbing the same mountain of learning, although all of us are not at the same level or on the same height.

     Our brother wants to know which congregation in the N. T. is to be our pattern. My answer is none! I would not want to "reproduce" the Jerusalem congregation at Saint Louis, with its race prejudice, its complaint about the way the money was spent in caring for the poor, or its community of goods ar-

[Page 4]

rangement. There was a "circumcision party" in the Jerusalem congregation, and there were "thousands who believed, and were all zealous for the law," so that Paul had to try and appease them. We have enough problems in Saint Louis in attempting to slough off our own sectarian attitudes without borrowing problems from Jerusalem.

     I would not want to "reproduce" the Corinthian congregation at Hartford. Brethren there are relatively at peace. The church of God at Corinth was rent by partisan strife, troubled by lawsuits, disturbed over eating meats, and the members refused to eat the love feast together. I am not afraid of finding at Hartford all that Paul was afraid of finding at Corinth, so I would not want to see Hartford become like Corinth.

     What does this mean? Simply that the congregations spoken of in the N. T. were composed of men and women like ourselves. Because of the moral tone of their place and age, in some instances members did things we would not do. But the congregation at Corinth with its schisms, immorality, lawsuits, etc., was "the church of God" (1 Cor. 1:2) and the apostle called the members "brethren. We must seek to restore the ideal of God, which is a fellowship composed of those who are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. We have been trying to "go back to Jerusalem" when we should "come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22). It is Jerusalem above which is free and our mother. We are not children of the slave woman but the free! (Gal. 4:2l-31).

     The goal of restoration is a unified service based upon a common belief. The fact we have not yet attained to it is proof that our task of restoration is not completed. It is charged by our good brother that we are going farther than anyone known to him in pleading for tolerance among those who differ on vital matters of faith and practice. I am thankful that I may plead guilty to the charge. Tolerance is not unity. It is forbearance. We are taught to "forbear one another in love." I want to try and excel in that respect. For years I was factional, intolerant, self-righteous and hateful. Those who differed with me, regardless of their sincerity, were the "untouchables" and I treated them like pagans and heathen. I glory to God that His grace has spared me, humbled me, broken up the depths of my heart, and taught me "the more excellent way."

     The restoration for which I plead has nothing to do with tolerating false beliefs and error. We are not told to forbear opinions, but one another. We will never get to the place where we all think alike. God has made us with varied mental capacities and degrees of perception. We can no more all think alike than we can all look alike. Our salvation in the Christ is not based upon such a contingency. Brother Loney and I do not think alike now. We never did. We never will while guided by our rational faculties. But he is my brother, and I love him dearly. Once I had a false concept of fellowship. If he had disagreed with me, I would not have recognized him. That era, thank God, is over. Now, regardless of his attitude toward me, I shall love him, help him, pray for him. He is my brother, and I will agree with him in everything where I honestly can, and forbear in love where I cannot agree.

     My brother introduces 1 Corinthians 1:10. The context shows Paul is writing about schisms and party strife. When he told them to "all speak the same thing" he had reference to the fact that "Each one of you says, 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas,' or 'I belong to Christ.'" They were all saying a different thing, and Paul told them to stop their party cries, and say they were one in Jesus. I could not speak the same thing about every thing like Brother Loney, because in many aspects of the spiritual life he knows many things I do not know as yet. There is room for brethren to differ in belief on some things. "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions. One believes he may eat anything while the weak eats only vegetables" (Rom. 14:1, 2). Paul says about these things in which all could not see alike, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Our brother quotes those very words and says that they constitute the false prem-

[Page 5]

ise upon which sectarianism is built, but I do not think he wanted to leave the impression that Paul was sectarian.

     Again our good brother says, "Our unity must approximate that which exists between God and Christ." But Jesus did not say that. To "approximate" means "to approach, or draw near." just how close must we come? How near must we approach? Jesus said, "That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." This prayer is not dealing with unity of opinion, interpretation, or thinking. It has to do with state or condition. Our unity is heaven centered. It is attained in the Father and the Son, not in comity agreements or pacts. "They may be one in us." Jesus and the Father are one because the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. "Even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." Since the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in us, we are one. "I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfectly one" (John 17:23).

     It is true the Father and Son think alike because both possess perfect minds and perfect knowledge. There are no external circumstances, degrees of ability, or study involved. Imperfect minds with imperfect knowledge cannot think alike, as we are demonstrating. My wife, God bless her, does not always agree with my understanding or interpretation of the sacred scriptures, but we are as much one in the Father and the Son as we are one flesh in the marriage union. I would as soon think of divorcing her for disagreeing with my concepts, as I would of disfellowshipping her. I shall break neither our fleshly or spiritual union, for I love her.

     I oppose human organizations established to do the work of the church of God. I think we may use individual containers to distribute the fruit of the vine. I endorse classes to teach the word of God. But I do not belong to an anti-institutional party, a class party, or a multiple cups party. Bro. Loney feels nothing will avail until convictions are changed. Will he expect those who differ to do all of the changing? Will they expect him to do it? Then each will stand aloof in his own party and regard the other as enemies, aliens and strangers.

     How do I propose to alleviate the condition? By the power of love! These are all my brethren. I shall treat them as brethren. I will go among them all when I have opportunity. I will be kind, courteous and considerate. If they treat me with unkindness, I will rejoice that I may suffer for His sake. If they come where I am I will not mistreat them. My heart and home will be open to them. "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful" (I Cor. 13:4, 5). I shall not compromise my convictions nor revile those who do not hold them. I am no longer a factional apologist, and this will not become a factional journal.

     I want to share with you a statement from an article by Brother Loney which appeared in MISSION MESSENGER, March 1950. I was inspired by it and it may help you:

     "No one who loves the Lord can view with complacency the spiritual condition of the church today. Contentions and divisions work havoc and hinder the progress of the gospel. Brother fights with brother, congregations are rent asunder, and we have lived to see men emphasize division as if it were a cardinal virtue of the plan of God, regardless of the prayer of the suffering Saviour that they all may be one. I truly believe that one of the greatest hindrances to peace and unity is the indisputable and horrifying fact that in most cases estranged brethren simply do not desire peace and unity! To them, those who are on the opposite side must be forever regarded as the 'untouchables' of a heathen religion. Where is there a Paul who will arise and say, 'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer for spiritual Israelis that it may attain to that degree of peace and unity that is pleasing unto God.'

     In most places where divisions have occurred, each side will vociferously maintain that it is fighting for 'purity' rather than peace, and anyone who presumes to question that position must hereafter be regarded as a spiritual outcast. I can and do conceive of a purity that is most unacceptable to God because it is not based on a sincere desire to save the impure among God's people. Paul knew his people were wrong, yet his desire for their salvation led him right into their midst to work and plead with them to turn back to God. If all who were alienated from each other in the church today would actively and earnestly seek to heal the breaches in the walls of Zion, we would see the dawning of a better day. With a strong desire for peace, the warmth and kindness of Christian love would soon dissipate the fogs of misunderstanding, and 'we would know each other better when the mists have cleared away!'... Our efforts in behalf of unity may not bring the results we desire, but one satisfying result always follows -- such efforts bring peace and happiness to our own hearts....