Taking God at His Word
by Gregory Alan Tidwell
“Whenever a man begins to draw the distinction between believing in Christ, and believing in the Bible, which reveals Christ, he does not believe in the Christ of the Bible or of God. And he who rejects the Bible, rejects the Christ of the Bible. And he is the only Christ that can save. All other Christs are the creations of their own minds, deification of their own conceptions.”
[David Lipscomb, The Gospel Advocate, February 5, 1890, p. 87]
As the new decade dawns in 1890, America is a nation in transition—industrially, socially, and spiritually. The streets are alive with the clip-clop of horse-drawn carriages and the clamor of factory whistles. The spiritual landscape is equally vibrant, shaped by the fervor of the previous generation's Second Great Awakening.
Amid this, the Restoration Movement stands as a rallying cry, calling believers back to the purity of New Testament Christianity. But not all is well. Beneath the zeal for unity and restoration, a darker undercurrent begins to flow—religious Liberalism.
The Rise of Liberalism: An Insidious Drift
The seeds of liberalism are sown quietly, often by scholars and preachers who claim to be champions of progress. These voices whisper that the Bible, though important, must be adapted to fit the evolving ethos of modern culture. Their arguments sound reasonable, even appealing, to those weary of the rigid “black-and-white” interpretations of Scripture. However, these subtle accommodations are not mere footnotes in theological debates—they represent a fundamental shift in how the Bible is approached.
The strategy is to challenge Scripture's unyielding authority, not by outright rejection but by reframing its teachings. “Did God really mean this, in this enlightened age?” becomes a rallying cry. The notion of absolute truth is diluted into relative, personal interpretations. Sermons once marked by bold proclamations of biblical authority are replaced with discourses that focus more on self-realization and social ethics than on Christ’s lordship.
Lipscomb’s Warning: The Danger of Compromise
David Lipscomb, a leader of the church in Nashville, becomes increasingly alarmed. He sees a creeping laxity among congregations that once thrived on scriptural fidelity. His editorials in Gospel Advocate thunder against innovations in both doctrine and practice. The stakes are clear: the authority of Scripture is being slowly eroded by a more 'reasonable' Christianity that trades conviction for convenience. Lipscomb contends that the essence of the gospel cannot be reshaped without compromising its power to save.
The Defining Split of 1906: A Watershed Moment
By 1906, the U.S. Census officially recognized a division within the Restoration Movement: Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ are no longer synonymous. This split, brewing for decades, is more than just a difference of opinion—it manifests two diverging worldviews. On one side are those who cling to the Restoration ideal: a return to New Testament patterns, insisting that the Bible be the final authority. On the other side stand those influenced by the Enlightenment's emphasis on human reason, advocating for a flexible approach that seeks to “contextualize” the faith.
The Progressive Movement: A Modern Crisis
As the 20th century drew to an end, a new challenge emerged within the Churches of Christ—this time from within its own ranks. The “New Hermeneutic” surfaces as a theological approach that treats Scripture as an evolving dialogue rather than a static revelation. Proponents argue that the Bible should be read with an emphasis on its cultural and historical context, often at the expense of its doctrinal clarity. Instead of calling believers to conform to God’s word, this approach invites them to reinterpret Scripture in light of their own experiences.
The implications are stark:
- Women Preaching: The new hermeneutic reinterprets passages like I Timothy 2:12 and I Corinthians 14:34 to suggest that they were culturally specific commands, no longer applicable today. This shift, once unthinkable, gradually gains acceptance, even in congregations that once prided themselves on strict adherence to biblical norms.
- Instrumental Worship: What began as a simple debate over using instruments in worship becomes symbolic of a broader issue—whether the church should mold its worship practices to fit cultural preferences. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, which once upheld a cappella singing as the biblical model, are now subject to reinterpretation.
- Baptism’s Role in Salvation: Rather than viewed as the necessary response of faith in Christ, baptism becomes a symbolic act rather than an essential step in salvation. Scripture is reinterpreted to suggest that baptism is not essential and the unimmersed believer is really a Christian.
Consequences of Compromise: A Spiritual Crisis
The consequences are not confined to doctrinal shifts; they manifest in the very identity of the Churches of Christ. The movement, once characterized by a bold call to return to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity, now struggles with an identity crisis. As congregations adopt more liberal practices, the distinction between the church and the world becomes blurred. Biblical authority is weakened, further compromising moral and ethical teachings.
This drift is more than theological—it is existential. The Christ preached by the Progressives is a Savior molded to fit cultural expectations rather than one who transforms culture through repentance and renewal. As Lipscomb once warned, when the authority of Christ is diluted, the power to save is lost.
A Call to Return: Faithfulness Over Flexibility
The future of our fellowship hinges on a choice: to embrace the broad way of cultural accommodation or to uphold the narrow way of biblical authority. The call is not to return to tradition for tradition’s sake but to reclaim the unchanging gospel of Christ, rooted in Scripture as the final authority. As the early Restorationists proclaimed: “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.”
The path forward is not about rejecting progress but about discerning which progress aligns with the enduring message of Christ. True restoration does not mean bending the Bible to fit modern sensibilities; it means allowing the unchanging word of God to shape a faithful, transformed community. In an age marked by compromise, the Restoration Movement must choose faithfulness over flexibility. Only then can it truly fulfill its mission to restore New Testament Christianity in both doctrine and practice.
