Restoration Run Amuck: Legalism in the Church of Christ

By William T. Chance

John chapter seventeen records Jesus prayer for unity among his followers, which did not appear to be answered in the affirmative. In the eighteenth century a movement began in the eastern United States to address the obvious division of Christendom. This Restoration Movement was inclusive, inviting people to leave Christian denominations and return to the Bible alone for spiritual guidance. Thus, speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent became their mantra.

In 1801 this movement kindled a large revival centered at the Cane Ridge Meeting House (cover of book) near Paris, Kentucky. Churches birthed by this movement grew and spread rapidly to both the frontier and the cities. However, within fifty years, conflict and division began to arise in these churches as some became more sectarian and others more legalistic, resulting in three primary groups: the Disciples of Christ, the Independent
Christian Church, and the Church of Christ. Of these groups, the Church of Christ was the most conservative, with many congregations taking silence of the Scriptures as prohibitive of everything not written in the two thousand-year old text, resulting in more conflict and division.

Thus, the Restoration Movement had run amuck, becoming mired in its own swamp of legalism. This book seeks to identify what went wrong, and what changes in attitude, behavior, and conversation are necessary to get the unity train back on its track.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Jan 31, 2012
• ISBN: 9781469745060

William T. Chance

William Chance is retired from careers in surgical research and mental health counseling. He is a life-long Christian, and has written “Restoration Run Amuck” and “Saved by Grace-Lost by Works.” William’s hobbies are writing, antiques and astronomy. William lives in Franklin, Tennessee with Debbie, his wife of forty-eight years.

Book preview

Chapter 1

Thank You Diotrephes

Each of us seems to have lurking inside our spirit a latent force waiting to be energized by some significant event. That event may be an epiphany, which stirs the spirit, or a trauma, that forces departure from life as usual. Many of us abhor change, for change is always disruptive. Change removes us from the comfortable flow of life and places us in the arena of unpredictability. Not knowing what is going to happen next is always frightening on some level and forces one to anticipate how he or she will deal with the new situation.

It seems that God has used change throughout history to accomplish his purpose. Thus, Abraham was told to pack up, leave his home, and go to a land that God would show him (Genesis 12: 1). Some apostles were called by Jesus to leave their fishing nets and follow him. The rich young ruler was asked to endure great changes if he was to become a follower of Christ (Luke 18: 18-25). God did not permit the first century church to simply continue to exist comfortably in Jerusalem, but allowed it to be persecuted resulting in the spread of the Gospel throughout the region (Acts 8: 1-5).

Therefore, God’s plan for man has never been focused on him being comfortable, or perhaps even being happy about his circumstances. Rather, God’s focus was and is changing us to be like him and accomplishing his will through our service. If we claim to serve God, but do not allow his Spirit to change us, he will provide a greater stimulus for change through trials (James 1: 2-4). Indeed, a Christian who is not growing appears to nauseate God (Revelation 3: 15-16).

Although I did not necessarily feel like a sinner, I was baptized into Christ when I was twelve years old. Except for some wild times as a teen and college student, I believe I was a good average Christian. I even allowed myself to be stretched beyond my comfort zone by teaching classes and home Bible studies as well as knocking on people’s doors to engage them in religious discussion. However, I did not allow myself to question my church’s traditional doctrine and maintained the line that if you were not one of us you were probably lost. This thinking remained largely intact until my son enrolled in a Christian college, which gave me the opportunity to be challenged by new ideas and experience worship in which one met the Spirit of God. These events allowed me to open the door of my heart and for the first time know the glory of God in a life-changing way.

At the time of these changes I was an elder in the Church of Christ. What I desired more than anything was for this church to taste God’s Spirit in a manner similar to what I had experienced. This church was quite conservative, and little planning went into the worship services. Thus, on Sunday mornings I would observe the song leader picking out songs that were to be sung just before the service started, and people scrambling to get others to lead prayers and other aspects of worship. The result of all this was that the service was predictable, low in energy, and did not come close to glorifying God as he deserved.

As a shepherd of this congregation I knew my responsibility was to lead people to see Jesus each time we met. Our worship services needed to change to reflect the dynamic nature of God’s Spirit and instill this dynamism in our spirits. Therefore, with agreement from the other three elders and two ministers, I set about to establish a mechanism that would help change the worship service so that the Spirit of God could be experienced each time we assembled. We formed a worship committee to plan the services, ensuring that each part of the service reinforced the other parts. We switched to presenting the words and music of the songs by a projector, while still ensuring that those who wanted physical copies of the songs had them available. The committee also encouraged the song leader to pick songs that reinforced the sermon topic and to use some of the newer praise-oriented songs. Those leading prayer and the communion service were also made aware of the theme of Sunday’s worship early in the week and were encouraged to try to reinforce that theme. We also presented at least one adult class each quarter that challenged the acceptability of routine boring worship to God, and set up a small group ministry.

The result of these changes was that our worship services improved, the congregation grew to the point of needing an expansion of the building, and we began having two Sunday worship services. However, success was short-lived, for Satan soon entered enough hearts to cause dissension and bring an end to much of what had been accomplished. Although it is difficult to know with certainty, it seems that some of the older members objected that some in the worship service were inspired to clap along with some of the songs. These older members complained to Diotrephes (III John 1: 9), who proceeded to ban singing of the songs to which some people had clapped. I objected to this censorship, but was always outvoted by Diotrephes and the two older elders. I also learned that the other three elders had been meeting without me to decide how to get me out of the leadership of the church. When they finally asked me to resign, the reason they gave was that I was not like them, to which I thought, thank God!

Rather than stay at this congregation and risk dividing the church, my wife and I left and began searching for a place of spiritual healing. This episode was one of the most painful events in our lives, for we had been involved in the Church of Christ for all of our adult lives. We finally settled in an Independent Christian Church, which welcomed the Spirit of God inside its doors. The ten years we worshiped with this church not only provided spiritual healing, but also allowed us to view the Church of Christ from the outside for the first time. We came to understand how a judgmental attitude promoted the idea of exclusivity. We observed how political power was maintained by an elders for life policy, and how a tradition of excluding women from even minor leadership roles stifled spiritual development. Perhaps the most significant issue we saw in our old church was how tradition prevented progressive spiritual growth. We also realized how insistence on a capella singing prohibited many young Christians from developing their musical talents.

In the Christian Church we found the Spirit was embraced in an atmosphere which also emphasized missionary outreach. Thus, this negative experience evolved into a great opportunity for positive growth and opportunity to learn from those of other religious groups. We learned what it meant to be saved by grace and not by works. For this great opportunity to learn what God’s church should be, I am truly thankful for Diotrephes and his co-conspirators. Without their ungodly expulsion of me, my thinking would not have been challenged and my life would not have been changed. In addition, the following chapters addressing what I consider significant issues for God’s church would not have been written.

I would be amiss if I did not emphasize that each Church of Christ is independent, with its own internal leadership. Thus, the nature of these churches may vary greatly. Although the churches with which I have been associated have generally been very conservative and very exclusive, grace-loving Churches of Christ do exist. We currently are members of a grace-loving, spirit-filled Church of Christ in the Nashville area, for which I also thank Diotrephes.

Chapter 2

Two Restoration Stories¹

It was a noble idea indeed. An idea that must have had God’s enthusiastic support and blessing. After all, had not God himself insisted on the purity of his people. This purity required no intermarrying, no mixing of families, and no dilution of the faith. Yet that is exactly what had happened with all of those Grecian influences. They were diluting the purity of the Law. They were introducing strange customs and new gods. Soon there would be no Jewish religion, culture, or nation. It would all be an amalgam, a heterogeneous group worshiping who knows what. Something had to be done to save this people for God. But who had the authority? Who had the strength? Who had the purity? So was born the Pharisees, the protectors of Jewish purity. They were the perfect children of God who knew everyone else should be as they were, yet also knew that they could not be. Pharisees were self-appointed saviors of the Jewish law and the father of the traditions imposed on the masses. It was them who would restore the Jewish laws and traditions to the rightful state of purity and truth so desired by God.

The evolution of the Pharisee sect of the Jews occurred during the 2nd century B.C. This time period was after Israel had been conquered by Alexander the Great. He was quite considerate to the Jewish inhabitants of his newly-acquired Palestine. They were allowed to continue practicing their religion, and Alexander even offered rewards to those who agreed to resettle in Alexandria. Alexander’s planting of Grecian cities throughout his conquered lands insured the rapid spread of Greek culture to those areas. Israel was not spared these Grecian influences, with inroads being made into culture, commerce, and religion. It was this contaminating situation that produced the Pharisees. They saw that there was a strong tendency among the Jews to accept Grecian culture and its pagan religious practices. Their purposes included preservation of the national integrity of Israel and ensuring strict conformity to the Law of Moses. Thus, they sought to restore Israel to its pure state of existence, eliminating all influences of the Grecian or any other culture. They thought this action was what God himself would do if he were on earth. He would preserve a people unto himself who were pure, holy, and righteous, while excluding the pagan, the sinner, and the common people.

To characterize the Pharisees as bad people is to totally misunderstand them. Indeed, they were the most righteous people of their day. They were dedicated to the Law and to doing what the Law said to do. They were lovers of and protectors of the Torah as the Word of God. Thus, they were dogmatic about preserving the original meaning of the Scriptures. This obsession caused them to develop the oral traditions, which they believed pointed out what God really intended to say in the Torah. Thus, they found it necessary to explain and amplify God’s Commandments, in order to make them fit each activity of life. Their primary concern in life was to make the Torah their supreme guide. So great was their concern for not breaking the Law that they built fences around the Law to serve as warning signals to control behavior before a commandment was broken. Thus, as summarized by George Knight², they developed 1,521 oral traditions (rules) for observing the Sabbath day alone. Needless to say, many more of these fences and their oral traditions existed for protecting the other commandments, and controlling nearly all activities of daily living. The Pharisees were also devout tithers, and they had great missionary zeal, by which they hoped to build up the holy community of Israel. They also looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of his kingdom. The Pharisees separated themselves from the rest of the Jews, the heathen, and the common people. They sought to pave the way for the Christ through keeping the Law perfectly. What then was the problem with this group of holy people that led Jesus to say "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter