I’ve enjoyed reading Alan’s investigation into Restoration Movement history. Campbell, often quoted by more conservative RM scholars, appears to have been more liberal than I previously thought. I wasn’t raised in the RM and I really didn’t become a part of it until a couple years ago. (Yes, the ICC was a branch of a branch within the RM, but so were the Branch Davidians. I was a part of the RM as much as they were.) My brother became a part of it a few years ago, being baptized in a CoC in Jarvisburg. We have always been brothers and are brothers in more ways than one. I wouldn’t say that he is a theologian, but he has had a deep belief in unity that I have only recently embraced.
Campbell appears to me as more of a liberal and that has made me think about how he and God have been interpreted.
This is the part where Kant comes in.
As Alan has chronicled, the RM went from seeking unity in essentials in seeking uniformity in everything. Along the way, a paradigm shift occurred. It’s as if the motto changed from ‘finding our way’ to ‘finding the only way’. To this end, I think Kant sheds some light on the folly of this.
Kant divided the universe into phenomena and noumena. Noumena exist outside what we can perceive, but they do exist. Phenomena are those things we can perceive. I tend to think of God as a noumenon that sought to be perceived. Not happy with what we can perceive about God, a lot of effort is spent trying to understand that which we cannot know.
Jesus claimed to be divine and allowed others to make such a claim. (John 1, et al) In Luke, he is named “God with us”, or ironically enough, Immanuel. He lived an breathed amongst us and suffered himself to die. Although existing outside perception from the beginning, he came to us and allowed himself to be known.
The record left us about his life is scant. Despite over thirty years of life and three years of ministry, there are but a few pages left by eyewitnesses. As far as we know, he never traveled more than some miles away from Nazareth except for the time spent in Eqypt as a child. He said very little that we know of – by comparison, we know more about what Abraham Lincoln actually said than Jesus. This would be without Lincoln’s own records. We know more about what Socrates said through his student Plato than what we know about what Jesus said. The record is quite reliable, just small in quantity. Add to that the ultimate economy, Jesus boiled down his ministry into two sentences. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt 22:16)
Yet, to this Spartan record, we have all sought to expand it. Some of this was out of neccesity, especially with the early church. Jesus left it to Peter and the others to work out some of the details. (Matt 18:18) In Acts 15, they had a council to work out the question of Paul’s ministry and the Gentiles he converted. (Acts 10 already dealt with the Gentile question in regards to those Peter converted.) Paul ended up dealing with all kinds of issues that Jesus never addressed. Fortunately, Peter considered Paul’s words Scripture.
Going beyond what is written was and still is sometimes neccesary. Jesus did not address every issue. Paul only addressed some for his day. As it is Scripture, what both men addressed in their times helps guide us today. Faith comes into play when we choose to believe that all of these writings, plus the written law, psalms, and the prophets are Scripture. This is a topic for another day.
It appears that since the first century, so much effort has been spent to understand that which we cannot know. The Gnostics searched for secret knowledge from the various apostles, even Judas. The Da Vinci Code speaks of a quest for secret knowledge in our time. As Christians throughout history, we have tried to place God within our own philosophies. As such, Paul spent a lot of time arguing more of Plato’s theories than other things. The founding fathers tried to place God within a universe of absolute laws of cause and effect relegating God as a superpower trapped within his own machine. Today, God is placed in all kinds of contexts to justify politics (Religious Right) and justify ourselves (God made me do it). We have put God in a box and called it Systematic Theology. The RM, specifically in conservative circles, has made God the Great Blogger with an opinion on every aspect of our lives. The difference, of course, being that his opinions are instant laws to mankind.
All of this spawns from that which we cannot know. People within the RM argue over one cup or many cups, adding kitchens to church buildings, instrumental music, The Sabbath, and other things. Most of these are extruding Scriptures from one context into a theorhetical one. Most of these arguments denigrate into “that’s how we’ve always done it” instead of a finer point of Scripture. To this end, it is so much arguing over words. We cannot know God’s on these matters and their pursuit is killing us. We do not spend nearly as much time on those things that we can know.
God demonstrates paradox after paradox, yet we think that God cannot contradict himself. God is somehow subservient to logic and like a black hole, even he cannot escape. In speaking of God to others, I’ve heard, “he has to do XYZ because it only makes sense!” Really? What part of ‘my ways are above your ways’ makes him a slave to our understanding? Again, what is important is what we can know. Logical inferences are about as binding to God as Australian law to American citizens.
What we can know is that there is no law against love. Creating a theology of what is love and how can I express love has very little to be cause for error. Contemplating the basics is never too far off track – love your neighbor. Teaching people about Jesus can be done on a postcard. Starting someone on their own quest to understand God can take a few minutes. God is a complex being, no doubt. In many ways, he is unknowable. However, in the ways he is knowable, the ideas are simple. (Not easy, simple.) A college education is not required, just look at the stories Jesus told. There’s not artifice in them, just a clear and simple teaching.
Some have thought that a new Restoration may start in this country. It would be nice, I think. In a way, I hope it doesn’t as the result will probably be the same as the first one. We are not content to search what God has given us, we have to know what he hasn’t given us.
Just a thought, as contradictory as it is.