Does Our Individualism Prevent Submitting to the Kingship of Christ?

In the United States "individualism" has historically been one of the foundations of society. " John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophes of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property." (1) Consequently, Americans have in general resisted the control of their lives by any central governing authority. Submission has only been granted through a democratic process and “consent of the governed”.

 In contrast, Christ describes His domain as the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God. Mark has 20 references to “kingdom” or Kingdom of God; Matthew has 54 references to “kingdom” and 38 to “kingdom of Heaven”; Luke Acts has 46 references of “kingdom” with 38 with the “kingdom of God”; in John there are 15 direct references to Jesus as “King”. (2) Clearly, the gospels depicts relates our citizenship as one being subject to a “king”.

Our heritage rails against such a state. Our very Declaration of Independence stated we have had “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” (3). Our world is not the world of monarchies or dictators. In the core of our being we resist submitting to those who are associated with absolute power. We are schooled in the belief that we are and should be “free.” Kings are associated with suppression of liberty and despotism. We do not take kindly to be being “subjects” of anyone. We certainly do not acknowledge anyone in our society as “Lord”. And, we do not “bow down” to anyone. 

Does this affect our attitude towards “Jesus as Lord?” How do we relate to being “subjects” in a Kingdom? Yet we are told that: 

Philippians 2:9–11 (NIV)
"9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

It would seem our individualism may get in the way of acknowledging Jesus as Lord. Instead we wish to “do our own thing” in religion as we are prone to do as secular beings.

Does the Avoidance of Risk in Our Society Affect Our Practice of Christianity?

Have you noticed how much our current society likes to eliminate risk in all aspects of society?  Take a little walk through olden times with me.  Growing up these activities were common place:

• School playgrounds that had swings with wooden seats, merry go rounds, see saws, and large metal slides placed on the dirt or gravel areas
• No baby seats in cars, no seat belts, no airbags
• Riding on the car fenders shooting rabbits or riding in the back of the pickup
• Hunting alone with shotgun or 22 at age 12-- I really think it was earlier
• Driving a team of horses pulling a hay rake at age 10
• Riding bicycle without  a helmet

Until recently, we did not have these laws or organizations to protect against risk.

• No OHSA ( Occupation Safety and Health Association -created 1970)
• No Transportation Security Association ( risk of terrorist attack)
• No EPA ( reducing risks from air and water) 
• Extensive labeling of food products (to reduce health risks)
• Controls on common guns and their purchase ( to eliminate risk of attacks)
• Consumer Product Safety Commission ( risk from products)
• Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (minimize financial risk)

It seems obvious that our society is moving towards trying to minimize all risk.  Just today the news  was on moving legislation to try minimize the role of football in athletics in K-12 in Texas to eliminate concussions or other injuries.  There was a bill introduced in Missouri to confiscate all guns.  These examples suffice to demonstrate the fears that our society has.

Risk avoidance can also be equated to the fear of ..............you fill in the blank.  This fears can be classified into four areas: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1201/prescol.html

• Fear of what our history has taught us to fear
• Fear of what we cannot control
• Fear of what appears to be an immediate threat or risk
• Fear of what we have seen/heard/read that is in our immediate memory particularly visual images

Do we have the same types fears and consequently try to avoid risk as Christians and in "doing church?"

• Do we fear any change in methodology will create a "slippery slope" 
• Do we fear those in the brotherhood who are trying new ways of "doing church" because they do not fit with the "way we have always done things"?
• Do we the "missional movement" because it threatens or comfortable way of doing church by  : a) using incarnational appproaches instead of  getting everyone to come to the building for our great programs and b) focusing on the unchurched "out there" instead correcting the doctrinal errors of our neighbors and leaving missions to the "missions committee"?
• Do we fear what we have read about "change agents" who tell us what we have been doing is not working?

Just Asking.

Can and Should the "Restoration Movement" Be Saved?

The answer depends upon what one means by the Restoration movement. “The Restoration Movement (also known as the American Restoration Movement or the Stone-Campbell Movement) is a Christian movement that began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. The movement sought to restore the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament.” It is an attempt to return to apostolic Christianity, but with a distinct view of scripture. In the view of Alexander Campbell “The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members”. “The New Testament is the proper and immediate rule, directory, and formula for the New Testament Church…in the observance of this Divine rule, this authentic and infallible directory, all … may come to the desirable coincidence of holy unity and uniformity of practice”

The emphasis on “pattern”, “constitution”, and “rule” led to an emphasis on restoring forms particularly in salvation, worship services, and governance. Hence relationships – to God, to members, and to the “unchurched” were neglected. By the unchurched I mean those who did not already have a Christian world-view of some sort. Though the purpose was “unification” and had some success in the years 1830-1910, disagreement soon fractured the movement.
There was little emphasis on Christ and his life. My own experience illustrates this point. My wife and I began Home Bible Studies in the early 1960’s using training with the charts of Mid McKnight. In the mid-1960’s we used updated charts from Robert Oglesby of Waterview Church of Christ, Richardson, TX. Since there was almost nothing about Christ we “made up” an entirely new chart on the life of Christ. Major biblical themes were ignored—grace, the Holy Spirit, etc. By the late 1950’s brotherhood papers, radio programs, and city wide-campaigns had solidified the acceptable “pattern” in worship and practice. Deviation was not allowed—with many splinters requiring finer adherence to their interpretation of pattern.

With the above understanding, one can began to answer the question. Has the Restoration Movement succeeded in moving our understanding of what God wishes for his people? Certainly in some respects it has—for “first principles” of baptism, faith, and repentance. But, if by saving the Restoration Movement is meant saving the cultural specifics of the solidification of “forms of worship” and attitudes of the churches of Christ and more specifically the attitudes associated with them, certainly not. If however, by the Restoration Movement is meant a return to an understanding of the revealed God and His mission (thus our relation to Him and our fellowman) based on His revelation in scripture, then, yes it should be saved. We as humans have a long ways to go in this quest.

Indeed, there appears to be a fundamental understanding that “doing church” as it has evolved in the churches of Christ and denominations is not working in a postmodern society. The growing “missional movement” is another type of Restoration. This Restoration focuses not on the “church” per se but focuses on transforming people to become disciples. “Missional is a way of living, not an affiliation or activity,” explains missional leadership specialist Reggie McNeal in his new book, Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church. “To think and to live missionally means seeing all life as a way to be engaged with the mission of God in the world.” This “Restoration” attempts to recapture the fundamental purpose of being a disciple. It remains to be seen whether this new type of restoration or “missional movement” is a “fad” or whether as Alan Hirsch states “it touches on the very nature of Christianity and is therefore foundational to the message of Jesus.”