Click HERE to read "A Christian Affirmation," published in the May 2005 issue of the Christian Chronicle (vol. 62, no. 5).

The “Affirmation” came out while I was in graduate school.  We read it and talked over it for part of a class period, and it quickly got buried in other reading, though I have been eager to come back to it.  The publication appeared at a time when the ideas for a NR dialogue were first forming in my mind, and it was helpful to my thinking for two reasons.  First, it gave substantial credence to the notion that the Church of Christ is suffering from an “identity crisis.”  The document clearly states that its context is the perceived need “to clarify our Christian identity” as churches of the American Restoration Movement.  The language of identity crisis was already common currency, but some had rejected it, saying that the problem was not about identity.  I believe it is, at least to a great extent.  The Churches of Christ have suffered identity loss through the evolution of American culture, and as every movement in history, it is faced with the imperative to decide what it will now be.  It may, of course, choose to be what it was, but that will most likely mean death and almost certainly mean irrelevance.  Second, it confirmed that at least one way to address this identity crisis is to highlight those things that define us--or should define us.  Although I am in significant disagreement with the marks that this document chose, it says something about what we do need for identity’s sake.  We need defining marks. 

The “Affirmation” functions in a creedal manner.  It attempts to delimit those “practices that have been characteristic of our churches,” which functionally identify who we are over against those who are not us.   I can appreciate that the document is not a creed in form, but I refer to its function.  And it is deeply appropriate on a historical level that a CofC creedal document would be a statement about baptism, Lord’s supper, and a cappella worship rather than an actual statement of belief about God, etc.  I do agree, for that reason, that these are the best defining marks of the CofC in a denominational sense.  These three points really do relate to the “beliefs and practices characteristic of the Churches of Christ” as a Christian religious institution among other Christian religious institutions.  These do not, however, get at the essence of restoration or point to a new path for restoration in the postmodern wilderness.  And the great irony here is that the document’s plea is, to a significant degree, for congruity with historical practice--with tradition, in fact.  My conviction is that many Churches of Christ may choose to continue being defined by the “Affirmation” marks, but they will simultaneously cease to be the true children of the RM. 

This leads to the first particular critique of the document, which is its uncritical and rather blasé approach to restorationism.  This would not be so important if the document had simply attempted to address the identity issue in terms of the three points that take up the majority of space.  But that was not the case; to say anything about “the path to substantive Christian unity” places the restoration plea sharply at issue in this identity-forming project.  There is obviously an underlying concern about overreaction, or at least inappropriate reaction, to the “legacy of legalism, sectarianism, and divisiveness.”  It is a point well taken that these are not inherent to restorationism, or even to advocacy of these three defining marks.  The great difficulty is that the document does not deal with the aspects of historical restorationism that have fostered sectarianism and the rest.  Of course, that is not the point of the document, but how can we so carelessly recycle restorationist language that seems to reflect old assumptions?  Phrases like “clear teachings of Scripture” and “common-sense approach to ecumenical reformation” beg tremendous questions, particularly in light of these three rather less-than-universal marks.  An old presumption or an old naiveté is present. 

This point is compounded by what must be called an absurd claim, namely that unity is to be found in “clear teachings of Scripture and practices of the early church” that are “commonly acknowledged and respected by all Christian traditions.”  As for the Christian traditions with which I am familiar, there are no few that would understand Scripture’s “clear teaching” differently than do Churches of Christ.  Moreover, many would also understand the early church’s practices differently than they are explained in the “Affirmation.”  It does no good to argue that everyone acknowledges, for example, that “ In the ancient church there were no unbaptized Christians” or that the instrument was a late historical addition.  So long as there is a theological explanation attached to the claim that these particular forms are universally binding--that is, grounds for unity--there will be nothing clear or common-sensical about them.  A restorationism that continues to sell the idea of unifying Christianity on a few early Christian practices simply because they were in fact early Christian practices will find a bare market among a more theologically complex postmodern Christianity.  Restoration is not synonymous with patternism, but patternism seems to be the best the “Affirmation” has to offer. 

Beyond the first-level problem of reasserting a historically ineffectual variety of restorationism, there is the deeper-level problem of the hermeneutical deficiency that accompanies it.  Happily, the “Affirmation” does at least concede in theory, “unity cannot be grounded in minimal agreements.”  This is true, and we are grateful for the admission.  Many in the RM have moved toward a desperately bare minimum of theological affirmations as the basis for Christian unity, and this will not ultimately suffice.  Unfortunately, in practice, the document evinces both reductionism and a lack of theological depth.  The former is seen in both the reduction of definitive conclusions to these three issues and in the typical restorationist reduction of essentials to only one: agreement with restorationist “common sense” methodology.  The latter is seen in both the placement of a cappella music on par with baptism and the Lord’s supper as theologically significant and in the explanations given for each point.  This need not have been a problem for a document that did not actually set out to give a full theological account of these items, but becuase it began to do so, the account given seems partial and superficial.  The two sacraments deserve a more well-rounded representation by any standard, to say nothing of what a church that would so single them out ought to say about them.  The truth is, the statements about these three items were made in the anti-theological stream of the historical RM, which preferred merely to restate the words of Scripture.  This mode can never be sufficient for uniting the universal church, whose essential vocation includes speaking meaningfully about God.