David Anguish
We are convinced that one of the grandest goals for which we can strive is what Alexander Campbell called "the restoration of the ancient order of things." We also know that efforts to reach this goal can be hindered in various ways.
Restoration is a grand goal because it is a quest for what should be, a statement which recognizes that the ideal has not always been realized. To acknowledge this is to state what Scripture shows us. Who will argue that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira reflect the honesty God intends (Acts 5)? That the neglect of the Grecian widows represents the doing of good he desires (Acts 6)? That baptisms which are not in line with the Pentecost pattern are acceptable to God (Acts 19)? That the failure to deliver to Satan the man who had his father's wife shows the moral holiness God wants in his people (1 Corinthians 5)? That worship abuses like those in Corinth are acceptable and in need of no correction (1 Corinthians 11-14)? That the very prediction of apostasy does not imply the need to make things right (2 Timothy 4)?
Some see such first century failures as reason to ridicule the notion of restoration. "Which church would you restore?" they ask. "Which was the ideal that must be replicated now?" To ask such questions is to miss a vital point about the nature of the New Testament. Those writers never claimed perfection for either themselves or the church generally. But if they did not claim perfection, neither were they content to sign off on failure. Their writings endorse successes and correct failures. Looking at both the endorsements and the corrections yields a picture of the ideal God intends, the ideal for which we should strive now.
But if some seize on first century failure to denigrate the notion of restoration, others fail to see the restoration implications of modern failures. Look again at our sample list of first century failures, cited above. Some deal with matters of form. And, contrary to what some are saying, form is important. In every phase of his dealings with humanity, God has prescribed forms which are designed to help those who serve him. Where we find criticisms of form (e.g, in the prophets), the problem is not with form per se, but with an abuse which fails to see that form is not all there is to serving God.
The point of the prophetic message is that they worked so hard to restore all that God intended in serving him. So today some need to be challenged to see that there is more to restoration than form. Too often, those who raise questions about other matters meet with responses which show satisfaction with the status quo and therefore little desire to change it. "People just expect things a certain way," we're told. But if what people expect does not meet God's ideal, then people need to be challenged to change.
The fact that the writers of the New Testament called for the ideal in both matters of form and other matters shows us that any failure to match the ideal God has in mind for his people demands a call for restoration. That call may be to doctrinal correctness. It may be to harmonize our speech with biblical terminology. It may be to restore an attitude, or correct a behavior. It may entail an expansion of service into areas which have been neglected. No matter which area is lacking, people dedicated to serving God must never allow themselves to give up the quest to reach the ideal he reveals.