MY OWNERSHIP OF THE RESTORATION PLEA

 

Becky Wall
History of the American Restoration Movement
Dr. Pabarcus, Professor
May 10, 2000

My Ownership of the Restoration Plea

The Restoration Movement is built on two key concerns: Christian union and biblical authority. I totally agree with the two principles, but I would sacrifice the quest for unity if the other wings of the Brotherhood did not consider the Bible as their source of faith and practice, if Jesus were not considered the Son of God, and if His death, burial and resurrection were not part of their doctrine of belief.

According to I Corinthians 15:12-17: “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

I believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. I think it is scriptural both in Word and by the example of the first Christians as recorded in the book of Acts, such as the eunuch and by Jesus Himself. But I personally do not want to disassociate myself from people with differing beliefs on baptism. If we all disassociated ourselves from them, how would they ever come to learn the truth. On the flip side, if we in the Christian churches are in error on any point, and if other churches disassociated themselves from us because of that disagreement, how would we ever come to know the truth? Throughout the history of the last couple of centuries, many great men fought for unity even while they held to beliefs that were in error, but over time they changed their beliefs, like Alexander and Thomas Campbell did about baptism. It was while seeking unity with others that they came to know the truth.

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

I am protective of Bible-based beliefs. I do not think they should be watered down, overlooked, or compromised by men’s traditions. I would not want the Christian church to preach or accept another baptism other than immersion because I believe it would be to preach or encourage a false doctrine. But at every opportunity our relationship with those of other beliefs should be to be unified on those points on which we all agree.

I think it is biblical to be governed by elders, but not biblical to have a council make decisions regarding the different churches in its district or division. There again, I would not disassociate myself from them, but I would not be willing to unite with them in such a way as to accept their “code of conduct.”

I do not agree with the practice of supernatural exercises, but I see how God took the occurrences at Cane Ridge and used them for the good. I do not see those occurrences as biblical or as edifying the church or as orderly worship, but they did get people’s attention.

I believe in open communion, but I am not sure where I stand on open membership. Do we have the right to deny anyone membership in the church? Is our membership policy that we are drawing members into the church, or that we are welcoming members into Christ’s kingdom? Is it not up to them to grow and learn the full knowledge of what it is to become a Christian as they mature? And we are all at different levels of maturity. I know people in other denominations who believe closer to what I believe than some of the members of my own church, simply because of their maturity level.

I like the statement, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent,” but much of what we believe in the Bible is inferred, and not directly “spoken.” For instance, the issue of immersion. It is argued and has been argued for a thousand years whether or not the original language of the Bible means immersion when it speaks of baptism. We must, then, follow example and logic. The eunuch did not use the small amount of water from his canteen or a jar to sprinkle or pour and John the Baptist baptized in a large body of water--not somewhere in a synagogue or other building where all he had to do was sprinkle or pour. The Bible does not tell us to meet on Sunday, either. We do that by the example of the apostles. The Bible does not speak to infant baptism--for or against. We assume that babies are not to be baptized because they cannot believe or repent.

I have no problem with instruments in the church. We are to use our talents for the Lord. It is when we misuse those gifts God gave us that there is a problem. Besides, instruments were used throughout the Old Testament in worship services and at celebrations. I don’t believe God changed his mind and decided using musical instruments in worship was a sin for New Testament believers. But if a non-instrumental person believes it is a sin and he violates his own beliefs, then for him it is sin. That, too, is scriptural.

I believe one of the greatest sins a church can commit is to split. It is akin to divorce. Both division and divorce are devastating to the parties involved and for many others who are caught up in the ripple effect. A church, meaning the people, should throw all their energies into making things work. The church is like a family. They should exhaust every avenue of reconciliation. God hates division. The one who is guilty of causing the split--even if it is to force the other wing to separate itself from the unacceptable actions or attitudes of their own wing--is not just causing a separation in the church family; that wing is separating itself from God.

My view of people from other denominations drastically changed when I joined the right-to-life movement in the mid-70’s. When we women united for the cause of defending the unborn, the women there were the cream of the crop from area churches. They were devout and knowledgeable. They were loving and caring. We could discuss religion without the discussion ever becoming heated. We were united on the one issue, and it brought us closer as Christians. I saw that they were serving the Lord to the best of their knowledge and belief, just as I was. The cause of abortion had united us, but the good that came of it was that we were able to share and compare beliefs in a loving setting. I longed for that to occur more often throughout the community of churches, but under better circumstances. On the other hand, if you multiply my experience with that of other people in other towns and cities, perhaps God is taking this evil and extracting more good than what I realize.