RESTORATIONISM
The “Restoration Movement” is a valid term. It identifies the religious fervor which brought about a return to New Testament Christianity in this country. There is certainly nothing wrong with the term, even though it may be used in ways that are not right.
There is plenty of evidence to show that some brethren have forgotten the Scriptural basis of the Restoration Movement. They are casting the term into a purely sectarian mold, which is far removed from the restoration principle itself.
The ideal of the Restoration Movement is to go back to Scripture as our authority in religion. When Hilkiah found the book of the Law, after it had been lost, young king Josiah said, “For great is the wrath of Jehovah that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of Jehovah to do according unto all that is written in this book” (2 Chronicles 34:21). The plea of that great movement was for people steeped in idolatry to forsake it and go back to God’s Word. The plea of the Restoration Movement is for people to break away from denominationalism and go back to the authority of the New Testament and find the church of the New Testament.
In recent years we have noticed that the term “Restoration Movement” is used by some in a purely sectarian fashion. They speak of “our movement,” as though the Restoration Movement is the only thing that distinguishes churches of Christ from the denominational world. The idea they present seems to be that churches of Christ are just one “movement” among others of equal validity. The implication is that “our movement” is noble in its intent, but fraught with problems and shortcomings. You will notice such expressions as “our movement,” “our tradition,” “restorationist Christians,” “restorationism,” “American Restoration Christians,” “our identity,” “our roots,” “our heritage,” etc. This is a radical misappropriation of both the term and ideal of the Restoration Movement.
An example of what I am discussing here is in the book, “I Was Under a Heavy Burden: The Life of Annie C. Tuggle,” by Edward J. Robinson, ACU Press (2011). This otherwise fine biography of sister Tuggle is tainted by the author’s view that the church is nothing more than a sect resulting from the Stone-Campbell Movement. He pictures sister Tuggle as having held a “sectarian stance” (p. 11), and that she is remembered for “her zeal and sectarianism” (v. 10), not her zeal and faith. According to this writer Annie Tuggle did not obey the truth as she understood it, but she “read her Bible through ‘Campbellian rationalism’” (p. 99). According to him, sister Tuggle did not have the courage of her convictions, but an “exclusive theological posture and combative demeanor” (p. 92). Sad! I am glad I was able to read sister Tuggle’s autobiography, “Another World Wonder,” where none of these impressions are evident!
Others can speak for themselves, but I am not a “restorationist” following “restorationism” as my “tradition,” and my “heritage,” with my “roots” in the 19th century. I’m just a Christian. That is all of which the Bible speaks. The ideal of the restoration Movement is not to lock us into a “movement” theology. I want to claim Jesus as my Lord and know nothing but him crucified. I want to belong to nothing but the church that wears his name! Those roots run deeper than any theology!