Last week, we noted characteristics of house churches that are fundamental and widely accepted across the spectrum of the movement. While it is informative to examine characteristics of this movement manifested in those from a denominational background, our main concern is the movement's effect on the body of Christ. Though this author has not compiled a comprehensive list of its effects, it is clear that the effects of this movement have been felt by the Lord's people across the country. In Tampa, Houston, Nashville, Bowling Green and other cities, brethren in non-institutional churches of Christ have had the painful experience of once faithful brethren departing from them to form house churches dedicated to incorporating many if not all of the characteristics given last week. It is to the main source of that influence that we turn our attention for the remainder of this series.
When those familiar with Restoration history look at the present house church movement, they have, as Yogi Berra said, "Deja vu all over again," as they hear many points of the movement's current plea. Daniel Sommer objected to located preachers and for a time rejected preaching at the morning Lord's day assembly as well as urging a mutual edification approach. In their early years, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, who were proteges of Daniel Sommer, strongly defended the "no located preacher" and "mutual edification" positions. The present house church movement would share much in common with these views, though they would come to the views from different perspectives. The unity-in-diversity views of Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett in their latter years would also be widely shared among the house church movement. Sentinel of Truth (1965-72) and The Examiner (1986-93), under the editorship of Charles Holt, did much to promote the same ideas and others held in common with the present house church movement. To Charles Holt and his fellow writers, rebellion to the legitimate authority of elders seemed to be the real basis of their thinking. From that foundation, these brethren went on to denounce and ridicule paid preachers, belittle established congregations as "institutional churches" even when they rejected the church-support of institutions, discard the practice of having an on-going treasury, repudiate weekly contributions, question the need for observing the Lord's Supper every first day of the week and frown upon any name or description commonly used to identify congregations of the Lord's people. There seems little doubt that some writings in The Examiner, that encouraged gathering for worship in private homes as inherently superior to meeting in "church buildings," served as the genesis of modern house churches in a few cities.
However, the main influence in recent years that has encouraged once faithful brethren to form their own brand of house churches is due to the teaching of F. LaGard Smith. He is the son of the late Frank Smith, a faithful preacher who labored for years in the Birmingham, Alabama area. After attending Florida College, Smith went on to receive both his bachelor's degree and his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree in Oregon. Smith was a professor of law at Pepperdine for 26 years before joining the faculty at Lipscomb University as "a scholar-in-residence for Christian Studies." He currently spends much of his time writing on a variety of religious themes. Several of his books have been widely accepted and praised among faithful brethren. LaGard's book, Who Is My Brother?, presented a justification for a broader fellowship to include those advocating doctrinal error and engaging in sinful practice. Sadly, his book has had a significant influence on many brethren, especially since some preachers in non-institutional churches have commended it. His constant defense of brother Homer Hailey and vicious assaults on those who opposed brother Hailey's errors have endeared Smith to a number of brethren.
These factors aided LaGard by giving him a ready audience among brethren for advancing the house church movement in his book, Radical Restoration. Though he says his writing is the product of his own, independent thinking, his book remarkably mirrors advocacy on the same subject by those of a sectarian background. Yet, we are assured that these strikingly similar twins are of different parentage. We leave the reader to draw his own conclusion about the similarities as we discuss Smith's points from Radical Restoration.
Smith begins his book with a tortured parallel between Edwin Abbott's book, Flatland, and the thinking of those in churches of Christ. Abbott's book presented a world distorted because people recognized only two dimensions as their reality. Hence, what was perceived as truth to them could be changed with the radical realization of a third dimension. In this way, LaGard begins to lay his groundwork by asking the readers to abandon their framework of thinking about the church to allow a "radical restoration" to take place. Of course, in order to establish the need for a radical restoration, he first asserts that the church today is fundamentally different than in New Testament times. Anticipating the objection, he says, "'Are we not already the New Testament church fully restored?' As we will soon explore in more depth, the simple (if uncomfortable) answer is 'no,' neither in the nineteenth century nor in the 21st" (58). He claims,
"Before real progress can be made, we will have to undergo a pivotal paradigm shift in the way we perceive even the notion of 'church' itself. Our concept of the church typically tends to suggest organization, complete with hierarchy and dogma. By contrast, the early church (while by no means disorganized) was far closer to being an organism -- less dependent upon formal structure and more spontaneous in action" (37).
As supposed evidence that churches have not actually been restored by following the direction of God's word, LaGard proffers the following:
"Our typical pattern for church organization and leadership closely follows the blueprint of both Catholic and Protestant ecclesiastical structure" (60).
"Then there is our ritualized, sacramental-like 'communion,' which is a direct descendant of Catholicism's highly formal Eucharist" (61).
"We have our Catholic and Protestant heritage to thank for the highly-structured worship format which we typically follow" (61).
"Some, I'm sure, will have been greatly offended at the mere suggestion that the 'Churches of Christ' as we know them are denominational in name and practice, and thereby fundamentally flawed" (268).
What is LaGard's solution? He envisions house churches with a setting that is intimate, informal, spontaneous, personal, active, mutually ministering and mutually participatory, gathered around the dinner table. That is "restoration"?
As he seeks to prove that churches today are very different from those in New Testament times, Smith correctly notes the digressive nature of some practices among institutional churches. In so doing, he merely emphasizes the point faithful brethren have been making for fifty years -- institutional churches are not the same in organization and practice as were churches of New Testament time. LaGard levels his most severe criticism at the "youth ministries" developed by his institutional brethren. He blames them for bringing a division of the generations, for replacing the function of the home, and for causing an improper shift to youth leadership. Yet, later in the book, he envisions a state where all emulate the very youth ministries he earlier decried, saying,
"Why are young people so excited when they return home from a weekend retreat? I suggest it's because they have experienced something very similar to 'radical restoration.' While I continue to be concerned about what I believe is too often a lack of biblical depth in study and song, and lament that parents are not playing the primary roles they ought to play -- nevertheless, look what is happening dynamically at those retreats. There is spontaneity, informality, intimacy, and mutual participation of a type which our young people rarely witness in our more structured assemblies And, of course, there's all that table fellowship which breaks down so many barriers" (235-6).
In the pattern of many liberal brethren for the past half century, he equates social relations with Bible "fellowship" while the Bible uses the word "fellowship" as joint participation based on common principles of truth and a common convictions based thereon (2 Cor. 6:14-18). For one to understand LaGard Smith's vision of the ideal church, one must understand that he views the change of the Lord's Supper to involve a common meal as the most fundamental change needed and that the social interaction flowing from that will inherently affect all other aspects of the church. He seeks a weekly camp-type setting as the solution, but the Bible does not.