REVIEWING RADICAL RESTORATION

Watchmen upon the walls of Zion must sound the warning concerning false doctrines. In the long ago Ezekiel was told, “So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live? Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:7-11.)

Warnings need to be sounded regarding the errors taught in brother F. LaGard Smith’s book, Radical Restoration. Some have been sounding the warnings. In previous articles, I have pointed out his errors; I am sounding another warning.

Smith taught in the law school at Pepperdine, but he is now employed as a professor at David Lipscomb University. Christians need to be aware of Smith’s errors. I do not intend a detailed analysis of all the errors in the aforementioned book, but I do want our readers to be aware of what Smith is advocating. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Smith’s advocacy of “house churches” is very close to the Boston Discipling Movement of a few years ago, which troubled the church. Alvin Jennings in his How Christianity Grows in the City, defended a similar view sometime ago. Smith charges that those who departed from small-group worship were responsible to some degree for the introduction of instrumental music in worship. He wrote, “Anyone claiming to be a restorationist who calls for the introduction of musical instruments into Christian worship has just flunked the Shibboleth test of restoration thinking. But the instrument issue likely would not even have arisen if the rest of us hadn’t already flunked the same Shibboleth test by departing from the small-group-worship model of primitive Christians.” (pp. 161-162.)

He refers to “city-wide elders.” But how could a city-wide eldership oversee the flock that is among them if the flock is scattered all over the city in house churches (Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:1-3)? Smith does not favor meetinghouses, but if he had to baptize someone, he would not hesitate to ask his brethren for the use of the baptistery. He does not want brethren to build a church building, but he does not mind using it once it is built.

Professor Smith does not believe that there is a necessity for a weekly collection, since the collection of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (as well as II Corinthians 8 and 9) refers to a special contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (Rms. 15:25-27). He says, “The truth is, there is simply no evidence that the early church ever made weekly contributions as part of an apostolically-mandated worship ritual. Their contributions, when made, were special collections intended to meet particular needs” (p.164. See also pages 163-166, 245.)

Do you suppose brother Smith runs his own household in this manner? Does he wait until a special need arises, as food, clothing or utilities, before he goes to work? Would his family appreciate that kind of provider? When a bill comes in, does he scurry around and scrape up the money to pay for it? Or does he look at his present and future needs, figure his income and budget it accordingly? He may run his household like the former, but that is no way to take care of the house of God.

According to Smith, whenever there is a special need, then a collection could be taken up. But there is always a need and obligation to support preachers of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:1-16; Gal. 6:6). This is a special need. Jesus said that we have the poor with us always. Thus, there will always be needy people, including the fatherless and widows (Jas. 1:27). That is a special need. If the church owns property, then there is upkeep on the building and grounds. That involves a special need. The consequences of Smith’s reasoning leads to a collection each week after all.

Paul commanded the churches to give every first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). It is true that the funds were to go to the poor saints in Jerusalem, but this example simply shows the way in which the funds are to be received. Any scriptural work can be supported the same way, i.e., by free will offerings on the first day of the week. Does Smith think the contribution is to be used only for benevolence? If so, has he ever received money from the church treasury for his preaching of the gospel? If so, let him repent. If he repents, let him make restitution. Let him give it all back.

Brother Smith teaches that the Lord’s supper is to be observed during the time the church is having a common meal together. Smith says that the communion as we observe it today is “not wholly unlike the Catholic’s sacramental Eucharist.” Smith, however, misses the reasoning of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 completely! Paul said if you are hungry, eat at home (1 Cor. 11:34); but Smith says if you are hungry, eat together in the assembly. Smith advocates what Paul condemned; that is, eating a common meal in the worship assembly. Paul was not saying that it is wrong for Christians to eat in the building; he said it was wrong to eat a common meal in the worship assembly. Besides the fact that they were perverting the Lord’s supper, the saints at Corinth were not sharing what they had with each other.

Since brother Smith teaches his idea that the Lord’s supper should be included in a “table fellowship meal,” i.e., what we might call a “potluck” mean, then I have a question for him or anyone else who holds to this view. Paul says in I Corinthians 5:11 concerning the withdrawal of fellowship from a wayward brother, “with such an one no not to eat.” Does this mean, then, that Smith would have to practice “closed communion”; or would he refuse to let the brother eat the common meal but allow him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s supper? Just how would he practice “with such an one no not to eat,” and have no “company” with him if the Lord’s supper is included in a common meal? Is he going to stand at the door and physically keep the brother from coming in to partake?

The Lord, through the prophet Ezekiel, condemned the priests because they “put no difference between the holy and profane” (Ezekiel 22:26.) Smith is guilty of the same thing by mixing the Lord’s supper in with a common meal or vice versa.

Radical Restoration is a repeat of the arguments made by the anti-located-preacher advocates and mutual ministry proponents of bygone years. Smith is making the same arguments that Ketcherside, Garrett, and others made fifty plus years ago. He echoes their charges: (1) local preachers are hirelings (p. 184, 189, 195); (2) elders have abdicated their responsibilities of teaching and preaching (p. 189); (3) mutual ministry method (p. 151, 181); (4) the evangelist is one sent to preach the good news (p. 197-198). I observed in a previous work of Smith his leaning toward the mutual edification view. Lord willing, in a future article I shall answer the arguments against located preachers.

A characteristic of Smith’s writings is his covering of his own tracks by stating one thing in one place and then setting forth a disclaimer in another. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth; so, one might take what he says either way. His writing is ambiguous. His book on baptism has a few good things in it, but statements toward the end of the book offset what he had stated earlier. The same can be said of his statement regarding an evangelist.

He says the evangelist’s role is to be sent; but then he says, “The question is not whether the evangelist is ‘located,’ but whether the one who is ‘located’ is an evangelist.” (p.204). But traveling, or being on the move, is not within the meaning of the word “evangelist” nor the word from which it is translated.

Therefore, watch out for F. LaGard Smith and his teachings. He may refer to it as “radical,” but I say it is as wild as a March hare.

The Informer

Vol. 56 No. 9

December 22, 2002