Southern's short article offers a number of insights. One, we have here a fascinating portrayal of mid-twentieth century nostalgia about the movement's origins and tenets. Southern expresses nothing in terms of evaluation, but the presentation's brevity, straightforwardness, and lack of critique seems to commend the "principles" of Restorationist biblical interpretation to the reader, as though their own intrinsic value is so obvious as to require no more than a simple restatement.
Two, Southern has indeed articulated a concise and incisive overview of Campbellite "exegesis," including some classic quote selections. White it does not appear that he intends to show these interpretive principles for what they really are, the truth of the matter stands out clearly: the essence of Campbellite interpretation is the belief that no interpretation is required, as "the precise meanings designed by God are obvious." This leads to the trinity of command, example, and necessary inference, which is (or, at least, may be) more complex than a total lack of interpretation but nonetheless fits, in principle, under the rubric of the simplistic interpretive cure-all, "thus saith the Lord."
Three, a standing problem emerges as one of restoration's fundamental concerns: the lack of a "well-defined, comprehensive method of Scriptural exegesis." We may presently wish to broaden the terminology a bit beyond exegesis or question the existence (or, more pragmatically, the benefit) of amethod, but the heart of the matter has been there from the beginning. Restoration struggles powerfully with the church's epistemological dilemma vis-a-vis Scripture.
Four, one of Southern's observations contains the seed of a neo-restoration hermeneutic. The tendency to go to the Bible for every answer, even the answers concerning how to go to the Bible, generated the possibility that the New Testament itself would provide principles of Biblical interpretation (not to mention the OT). While this led to little more than the misconception that phrases such as, "It is written," can be used as blunt-force interpretive instruments, lack of development does not rule out the legitimacy of the notion itself. Happily, inner-biblical interpretation has been on the scene for many years now, suggesting a hermeneutical path for neo-restoration that, upon traveling it, feels strangely like a way home.
