How You Begin Determines How You End.

Our tribe is apart of the Restoration Movement whose beginnings are attributed to Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone, among others, who had major rolls in setting us on the Restoration path. Over one hundred and fifty years have now passed. Some would claim that success was reached in the 50’s and 60’s and today seek desperately to hold on to ground claimed then for now and forever. The major accomplishments lauded by this segment of my tribe are mainly in the area of doctrines about worship, church structure and how to become a Christian. Many others in my tribe are in what I would call a state of evolution. I am apart of that segment. We are taking a new look at where we are and where we are going. Some of us are becoming more contemporary, that is as contemporary as the groups we are apart of will allow us to become. For example some congregations are beginning to allow instrumental music, but that is still a very small number in comparison to the whole. In contemporary services there is a new emotional expression that has not been apart of our heritage. Clapping of hands, hands raised in praise and movement to the music are fresh expressions of our involvement in what is happening. With that said, please allow me to think out loud with you for a minute or two. This is off the top of my head, extemporaneous if you please, so this is not in concrete, but I offer it for your consideration and comment. It appears to me that in our attempt to “restore” New Testament Christianity we started in the wrong place. I believe that doctrine is vitally important, but I am not sure that is the best place to have started. The emphasis, as I see it, at the heart of the words of Jesus was to change our hearts. He sought to change us from the inside out. That process was in turn designed for each of us to become agents of change in our world. Jesus called us “Salt” that when mingled with the world changes what it touches, “Light” that reflects Him to the world, a city set on a hill that cannot be hidden. The attention drawn to us by so living was to cause Him to be exalted and lifted up. Here is an example of what I am talking about. Among our tribe we have quarreled and divided over the “way” in which we take care of orphans and widows. We differed over the “doctrine” and then both sides did little or nothing to really make an impact on the orphans and widows among us. Note, I didn’t say we didn’t do anything; we just had very little impact on the problem as a whole. Much of the benevolence that we do is corporate in style and not individual. We give our money into a community pot and it is doled out as needs arise, and the givers seldom ever see the impact of their gift. The same could be said of how we deal with the sick. Paid staff visits the sick in hospitals and we track the progress through printed media on how they are doing. To use the vernacular of the day, the difference is institutional or missional. One says let the church do it and I will put my check in the plate, the other sees response to needs as individual – neighbor to neighbor. I realize that doctrine is involved in how we lovingly respond to others, but I just wonder, if we had started in a different place would we have ended up in a different place doctrinally. What do you think?