A Restoration Theology of Worship

Restoration theology of worship arises from the rejection of traditions and creeds in favor of Christ alone and Scripture alone. Consequently, all thinking about worship is shaped from this premise.

“No Creed but Christ!”

Anthology of worship that would discuss the theology of the restoration movement, and of worship among the churches that have emerged from it, must first acknowledge an old but persistent dilemma. Persons long familiar with this movement tend to choke on the word “theology.” They are reluctant to start talking about it, and when they do, they find they hold very diverse opinions. The late historian A. T. DeGroot explained the Disciple’s reluctance to talk about theology by recalling that… they were repelled by the church as they saw it—a church of medieval and post-reformation years, which had become so hypnotized by the theological debate that it presented itself to the world as a fraternity for forensics, closely involved with politics. (A. T. DeGroot, Disciple Thought: A History [Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1965], 23.)

A famous battle cry of the restoration movement was, “No creed but Christ!” Many churches were using formal statements of faith as tests of acceptance or inclusion—for membership, ordination, or both. Persons holding the right beliefs were in; those whose beliefs were in error were out. Because the founders of the restoration movement rejected this abuse of theology, many followers assumed theology was something to be avoided. Thus those with anti-intellectual tendencies justified their distrust of theology.

While Disciples continue to reject using theology as a test of orthodoxy or basis for membership, they realize its importance in clarifying beliefs for the sake of talking with Christians in other denominations. The purpose of theology was not to explain or defend a statement of faith but to express clearly what was believed.

When people join a church, they are asked, “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and do you accept him as your Lord and Savior?” Even paraphrased, this question will almost reflect Peter’s confession of faith (Matt. 16:16). It is a simple confession. The word “your” in the second clause stresses the personal commitment entailed in giving a positive answer to the question. At the same time, it raises important theological issues. Though this article does not explore the important question of Christology, an excellent study of this subject is William R. Barr’s, “Christology in Disciples Tradition: An Assessment and a Proposal,” in Kenneth Lawrence, ed., Classic Themes of Disciples Theology ([Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1986], 9–27). If Jesus is “Christ” and “Savior,” from what does he save us? In other words, what is sin? And for what does Jesus save us? In other words, what is our hope and destiny? If we call Jesus “the Son of the living God” and “Lord,” what do we mean by “God”, and what is the relationship between Jesus and God? In what way is Jesus human, and in what way divine? M. Eugene Boring’s, Truly Human/Truly Divine (CBP Press, 1984) a study of the Gospel of Mark, explores these questions in the light of current Disciples thought. As we discuss such matters, we appeal to some authority. Among all branches stemming from the Stone-Campbell restoration movement, this authority found in the Scriptures, “No book but the Bible!” is a corollary to the cry of “No creed but Christ.” However, the different branches of this movement differ noticeably in how the Bible is to be studied, understood, and applied.

In pondering such questions, Disciples and other descendants of the restoration movement want to know what the early thinkers of the movement had to say. Royal Humbert spent thirty years analyzing the writings of Alexander Campbell as found in The Christian Baptist, The Millennial Harbinger, and several other sources. The product of his investigation was the Compend of Alexander Campbell’s Theology (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1961). Humbert arranged Campbell’s writings into twelve subject areas: “Faith and Reason,” “The Bible,” “Revelation,” “God,” “Christ as Lord,” “The Holy Spirit,” “Grace,” “The Church,” “The Means of Grace” (ordinances), “Man,” “Christian Ethics,” and “Eschatology.” In this way, Humbert was able to show that Alexander Campbell, who never compiled a systematic theology, was nevertheless an influential theologian.

Alexander Campbell’s prolific writings have had more impact on the theology of the restoration movement than those of any other author. However, during his long career, Alexander Campbell’s ideas and attitudes changed in significant ways. His earlier period has been called iconoclastic; there was a negative emphasis to many of his writings in The Christian Baptist. During the years when he edited The Millennial Harbinger, he took on a gentler and more optimistic tone. Because of these changes, it is possible to find two statements by Alexander Campbell on a single subject that directly contradict each other.

Similarly, although other reformers who cooperated with Campbell in the restoration movement may have agreed on the principal goal of restoring the faith and practice of the apostolic church as the basis for reaching Christian unity, they differed from him and each other in their convictions about that faith and practice. Consider, for example, the name for this body of believers. Thomas Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and Walter Scott all favored the simple name “Christians” or “Christian Church”; Alexander Campbell alone argued for the name “Disciples of Christ.”

The point is, that people within this movement have valued freedom of opinion and diversity of thought. For this reason, generalizations about the theology of this movement are always too simplistic. Nevertheless, the following comments on four subjects relevant to worship suggest the type of theological conversation that is current among those who belong to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

The Bible

Professor Eugene Boring describes Alexander Campbell’s view of the Bible as “both like and unlike all other books.”

It is like them in that the Bible is a human book by human authors, expressed in human words and ideas, and is, therefore, to be interpreted by the same grammatical-historical methods as all other books. But the Bible is unlike all other books in that it is a book of revealed propositional truths, divinely inspired in its entirety, and is, therefore, to be dealt with as in a different category from all other books. (Eugene Boring, “The Formation of a Tradition: Alexander Campbell and the New Testament,” The Disciples Theological Digest 2:1 (1987): 5–62).

Campbell wanted biblical scholarship to be possible for the common reader, not limited to a professional elite. He laid out rules of interpretation that would free Scripture from fantastic, complicated, allegorical explanations, on the one hand, as well as from rationalistic solutions that did not allow the reader to listen for the voice of God speaking through the words of the Bible. He believed that some parts of the Bible shed more light than others. The stories of creation and the patriarchs are like starlight; the laws of Moses and the history of Israel are like moonlight; the story of the Christian church and the Epistles are like sunlight. The brightest light, judging from the number of references Campbell made to it, shines from the book of Hebrews.

Contemporary Disciples of Christ study the Bible with tools of historical and literary criticism. The Bible is not a book to be worshiped, but a library to be studied with the whole heart and mind as one seeks to find the will of God.

The Church

Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address challenged Christians to find in the New Testament a model of the primitive church that could be reproduced as a uniform standard. He said, The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament church, and the particular duties of its members.

Campbell was seeking to find in the New Testament a long-lost, simple solution to the dilemma of division among Christians. Such a solution was never found by Thomas Campbell, by his son Alexander, nor by those who joined them in the quest. Part of the problem, according to Professor Mark Toulouse, is that their reading of history was nostalgic rather than objective; the primitive church of the apostolic era could not provide a single, simple model, much less an ideal one. Moreover, their reading of the Bible as “a constitution” was mistaken. They were looking in the right place, but in the wrong way for something that was not to be found.

Nevertheless, they sincerely sought the voice of God instead of human authority for ordering the life and worship of the church. Thus they grasped a criterion by which to sift out the accretions that grew as the world sought to squeeze the church into its mold, and by which the church might be transformed by a renewal of minds seeking to discern the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Perhaps the most significant fruit of their efforts was a renewed focus of worship around the Lord’s Table.

The Lord’s Supper

Professor Keith Watkins introduced a book on the Lord’s Supper for Disciples by saying, “The major act of Christian worship is a meal, a feast of joy where Jesus is the host and his people everywhere the guests” (Keith Watkins, The Feast of Joy [St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1977], 11). This statement implies three important points of theology.

First, the Lord’s Supper is the essential element of worship. All followers of the Stone-Campbell restoration movement observe Holy Communion every Lord’s Day. Some, perhaps, have diminished the Lord’s Supper so that it is less important than the preaching event. Even they, however, would not consider holding a Sunday morning worship service without breaking the bread and sharing the cup. A growing number of churches are giving greater emphasis than ever to the Lord’s Table as the reason for gathering to worship.

Second, the Lord’s Supper is a joyful event. It is a thanksgiving dinner. At the Table, we remember God’s saving act in Jesus Christ and we rejoice. Remembrance, a key to worship, is not reliving the past, but re-experiencing in a fresh, relevant way the meaning of what took place in the past. Recent trends lead away from Communion as a grave time for private meditation (though it is deeply personal) and toward an appreciation of this moment as a time for community and celebration. For the Disciples of Christ, employing the chalice as an emblem or logo is a way of proclaiming to all Christians the call of Christ to unite around the Table.

Third, Jesus Christ serves as the unseen host at the Table. Because he is the one who extends the invitation to come, no human being or group has the license to refuse anyone who accepts that call. The Table is open to anyone. Informally, most members of this movement understand the invitation as a call for persons who have received baptism to renew the meaning of baptism at the Table. However, even in churches that practice “closed membership” (requiring immersion for membership), there is always an “open Communion” policy. Believing that Christ is the unseen host at the Table also addresses the question of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Baptism

In ecumenical dialogue with other churches, Disciples of Christ have gained respect for other theologies of baptism. By continuing to look to the Scriptures, not for an ideal model or for proof of the right method of baptism, but for the real meaning of baptism, Disciples have grown in their understanding of this sacrament. Understood as a once-in-a-lifetime, unrepeatable act of God’s grace, on the one hand, baptism also involves a human response to God’s gracious act (Clark M. Williamson, Baptism: Embodiment of the Gospel, The Nature of the Church: Study Series 4 [St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication, published for the Council on Christian Unity, 1989]).

Colbert Cartwright has said, “The fundamental question for us Disciples is not what we believe but in whom we believe.” (Colbert S. Cartwright, People of the Chalice [St. Louis: CBP Press, 1987], 69.) In this priority, all three major branches of the Stone-Campbell restoration movement can stand as one. Whether one interprets the Bible literally or by means of higher criticism, whether one shuns other “sects” or works for church union, the most important thing is to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

A Post-Reformation Model of Worship: Restoration Worship

Until the rise of the Stone-Campbell movement on the American frontier, the restoration movement that began in Britain was so fissiparous in spirit that much diversity in worship was inevitable. Eventually, however, a primitive model of worship based on the second chapter of Acts prevailed.

Introduction

The restoration movement can be traced to the departure by John Glass from the Church of Scotland in 1728. His son-in-law, Robert Sandeman, started several small churches in Scotland which patterned their worship in such a way as to restore the order of the church described in the book of Acts. Yet another branch of this movement began when James and Robert Haldane started an independent church in Edinburgh in 1799 as well as a seminary in Glasgow.

As Sandemanean and Haldanean influence spread, Thomas Campbell and his family started attending services in the Haldane church southwest of Belfast, Ireland. Campbell, a Presbyterian preacher, was impressed by the ideas of the Haldanes. His son Alexander, eventually became the most articulate advocate of restoration ideas.

In 1807 Thomas Campbell set sail for the United States. Arriving in western Pennsylvania, he found that religious freedom and the separation of church and state had resulted in unbridled sectarianism. Moreover, only one adult in ten belonged to a church and attended worship regularly. Sectarianism was an obstacle to evangelism: Therefore, Thomas Campbell declared, “The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.” Furthermore, he claimed, “Division among Christians is a horrid evil fraught with many evils.” Unity among Christians, he said, should be based on love and on a simple effort to follow the Scriptures alone in faith and practice.

At about the same time in Kentucky, Barton W. Stone was leaving the Presbyterian church for similar reasons. Those who followed his lead simply called themselves “Christians,” and they also based a plea for Christian unity on the standard of restoring the faith and practice of the church to a New Testament pattern.

Although no absolute rules were set down by restoration leaders for an order of worship, churches in this movement looked to Acts 2:42 for a model of how the New Testament church worshiped.

Text:

1. Invocation
2. One or two hymns
3. Reading of Scriptures
4. Prayer
5. Hymn
6. Sermon
7. Invitation hymn
8. Lord’s Supper
9. Hymn
10. Benediction

Commentary: To overcome the formalism of the Church of Scotland in the late 1700s, restoration worship followed a variety of practices. Resistance to prim ceremonialism attracted pioneers on the American frontier in the early 1800s. Farmers in western Pennsylvania, western Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky had little use for protocol in worship: What they wanted was substance. They considered prescribed prayers less meaningful than impromptu petitions from the lips of a lay elder. Imposed liturgies satisfied these pioneers less than informal services improvised for the circumstances of each congregation.

Nevertheless, part of restoring worship to a New Testament pattern was doing all things “decently and in order” as Paul encouraged in 1 Corinthians 14:40. One thing was certain: the Lord’s Supper would be observed weekly, and that practice became a normative and identifying feature of the movement. Moreover, restorationists understood the Lord’s Supper as a symbolic memorial of the self-giving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which revealed God’s unconditional love in history, and which continues to show forth God’s forgiving grace. A leader, usually a lay elder (most frontier churches functioned without ordained ministers), took the bread and cup, offered a simple prayer of thanks, broke the bread, and gave the bread and cup to the congregation to share with one another.

In the language of Acts 2:42, “the fellowship” (koinonia) implied a partnership with other Christians. Thus, a weekly collection of tithes and alms for the work of the church and the relief of the poor played an important role. This offering was integrally related to the Communion service.

Scriptures and sermons almost always were from the New Testament, which they considered not only a more recent, but a brighter disclosure of the light of divine truth than the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible was understood as a set of facts which, if clearly set forth, would be seen the same way by everyone. The New Testament came to be seen as a “constitution” for the Christian life.

Salvation was considered a legal kind of transaction, so the purpose of the sermon was to convict—not by means of emotional enticement, but by the use of reasonable common sense. Clear, simple communication was more important than theological refinement. The sermon became more evangelistic due to the situation of preaching to the many who were unchurched; often sermons led to an invitation to Christian discipleship. Those who responded to such a call were received into the church as members based on a simple confession of faith in Christ and baptism by immersion. They were not tested for correct beliefs, nor obliged to describe a personal religious experience, nor required to pass a vote of the congregation.

An issue that divided churches in this movement by 1900 was whether instrumental music should be used. In pioneer churches, musical instruments often were unavailable. But singing was very important. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 were understood as promoting congregational singing both as an expression of praise and as a means for building up faith among believers.

Worship during the Exile and Restoration

The return of Israel after the Exile brought renewed interest in worship; the temple was rebuilt and sacrifices were reinstated. The synagogue, originated during the Exile, now became the focal point of a non-sacrificial worship.

The nature of worship in the exilic period is much debated. One theory postulates that the absence of the temple and the deportation to a new land forced the faithful to restructure worship to accommodate the new situation. The Psalms speak to the discouragement of those in exile and their longing for the land of Zion (Ps. 137:1–6). Historically it seems that not all Jews desired to return as earnestly as the author of Psalm 137, for not all Jews did return to Jerusalem when they were eventually allowed to do so by an edict of Cyrus (538 b.c.). It also appears that not all Jews were deported from the land in the Exile. Tension developed between the returning Babylonian Jews and the Jews who had remained behind and intermarried with other peoples.

The Persian armies under Cyrus swept across the eastern frontier of the Babylonian empire in 539 b.c. and reached as far as the Egyptian frontier. Cyrus was one of the most enlightened rulers of ancient times. His aim, as far as it was possible, was to allow subject nations to enjoy cultural autonomy within the framework of his empire. His successors tended to follow in his steps. By means of a complex civil and military bureaucracy, a firm control was established over the empire, but within this framework local customs were respected, established cults were fostered and protected, and responsibility was entrusted to native rulers. In the first year of his reign Cyrus issued a proclamation permitting the Israelites to return to their homeland, ordering the rebuilding of the temple, and inviting Jews remaining in Babylon to assist with contributions. Although this edict would seem to have been received with overwhelming gratitude, and a mass exodus back to Israel would have been expected, this did not happen.

Many of the Jews had become well established in Babylon and had no wish to leave, particularly on a long journey with uncertain goals. The initial wave of returnees was not large, and though it was reinforced by later immigrations, Jerusalem was still thinly populated and in a state of ruin seventy-five years after the edict. The inhabitants of the land, Judeans who had been left behind in the Exile, as well as Edomites who had moved to fill the vacant land, were not happy to have these returnees move back. The Samaritans to the north were antagonistic, claiming that they held fast to true worship while their exiled kin had become polluted with Babylonian influences. The Samaritans and Judeans who had remained in the land had absorbed pagan customs into their worship and began to affect some of the returnees. The leadership feared for the integrity of the community and sought to end all contact with the native population.

With the return of the exiles came a renewed interest in temple worship. The building of the second temple commenced around 520 b.c. and was completed in 515 b.c., overseen by the high commissioner Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua. Nehemiah and Ezra the priest played important roles in the gradual return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the community of faith. Although the temple was rebuilt and worship, priestly sacrifices, and pilgrimages were reestablished at the cultic center, the enthusiasm was never to be of the same intensity. The frailty of a faith focused on a central location had been demonstrated in the fall and destruction of the temple one-half century earlier. The noncultic aspect of this faith, particularly as expressed through emerging synagogue worship, developed greater importance during the Exile, and Ezekiel and the prophet of Isaiah 40–55 had known God’s presence in a strange land without the use of the temple.

Synagogue worship had a distinctive pattern. Wisdom and the study of the Torah became the goal and focus of the synagogue. A crisis existed in the faith of the Jews, who had been without a temple for the greater part of a century. A new form was needed to adapt to the new circumstances. The synagogue became the ekklēsia, that is, the assembly or congregation. The worship in the synagogue stressed reading and exposition of the Torah, prayer, recitation of the Shƒma‘ (based on Deut. 6:4), and recitation of psalms.

Ezra’s reorganization brought a fundamental change to Israel. No longer was Israel’s identity centered on a national cult. Rather its identity from this point forward would be seen as that of a religious remnant who rallied around the Torah. Judaism did not change the basic elements of worship during the Exile and return; the focus and stress, however, were simply heightened to accent one feature of the tradition. The Law, or Torah, became the organizing principle.