RENEW.org Network recently hosted a 24-hour meeting of (mostly) ancient-church scholars to explore how to present a historically informed, Scripture-centered case for Restoration Movement ideals. (RENEW.org Network is an extension of this historical movement.) We are conscious of our cultural moment, in which a significant subset of young adults in our churches and Christian colleges is showing increased interest in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and, to some extent, Anglicanism. We considered the appeal of ancient traditions, theological depth, and institutional continuity, while also discussing the Restoration Movement\u2019s own history, internal divisions, and\u2014most importantly\u2014its historic perspectives and resources for renewal.<\/p>\n
The Restoration Movement\u2019s theological focus, like that of many church traditions in North America, is facing challenges. There has been a breakdown in the historic sources of theological strength\u2014schools, publications, and related institutions. It has become trendy to assimilate into generic evangelicalism, quietly leaving behind historic biblical views of baptism (as an expression of faith for the forgiveness of sins), weekly communion, and leadership by male elders, among other distinctives. In addition, the transition from legacy gatherings (such as the North American Christian Convention for Christian Church leaders or the Tulsa Soul Winning Workshop for Churches of Christ leaders) to more specialized conferences has accelerated theological homogenization with generic evangelicalism. This shift often dilutes distinctive doctrines in order to satisfy consumer-attendance scorecards and fit into the broader evangelical church culture.<\/p>\n
These weakening theological convictions are compounded by platformed individualism (smartphones and social-media algorithms), faith deconstruction, and the compound fracturing of evangelicalism itself through the breakdown of theological, cultural, and ethical pillars.<\/p>\n
Yet we remain hopeful and confident in our convictions. We are committed to the best in biblical theology, which we believe is also the best in Restoration Movement theology. Our hope lies in a Scripture-based, theologically-grounded focus on Jesus-style disciple making in the emerging generations.<\/p>\n
The explicit purpose of the 24-hour gathering was to prayerfully discuss how we can present a strong case for the best of our Restoration Movement theological ideals in a cultural moment when a significant subset of young, thoughtful adults is attracted to ancient-church rootedness for answers.<\/p>\n
In advance, all participants reviewed three documents:<\/p>\n
These documents were foundational to our meeting. There were significant upgrades added to the two papers after the input of the group.<\/p>\n
Participants spent significant time getting to know one another. Five hold PhDs with expertise in early church history (and teach at theological institutions); one holds a Doctor of Ministry in church consulting; two others are popular and effective preachers with master\u2019s-level background studies in church history; one is a church-planting expert and author with expertise in the last six decades of the North American church-growth movement, etc. This summary report will not list the names of the participants, because it is not necessary for the overall summary and because of sensitivity to the academic or professional or personal relationships that may be involved.<\/p>\n
The Renew Ancient Church Collective will be an ongoing, as-needed gathering to help RENEW.org Network publish blogs, position papers, and books that spread historical and theological teachings that help to answer the challenges. We will also provide teaching seminars at RENEW.org Gatherings and at conferences of partner organizations.<\/p>\n
Here are the top six mandates that emerged from our meeting.<\/p>\n
There is a strong interest in rootedness and in that which is historical rather than transitory. This means a significant subset of Generation Z is drawn to early Christianity as a more solid foundation and is thus focused on exploring Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n
Participants reported frequent questions from students and young adults about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, with some interest in Anglicanism as well. One participant said they receive two-to-three inquiries at their school every week (from former students and others), and that these inquiries often lean toward Eastern Orthodoxy, though Catholic conversions also occur. Similar observations came from leaders at Ozark Christian College, Harding University, Lipscomb University, Lubbock Christian University, Pepperdine University, and elsewhere, suggesting the trend is not limited to one institution. Recent Barna research points to a similar trend.<\/p>\n
The group identified several factors behind this interest: a desire for ancient rootedness, deeper theology and spiritual practice, and a clear account of church authority and continuity. These questions are also part of the larger breakdown in the foundations of Western civilization. Participants argued that responding effectively requires presenting Restoration ideals with historical and theological depth rather than simply dismissing the appeal found in other traditions outright. The New Testament\u2019s authority was treated as foundational to that discussion, while the group also emphasized the need to understand early Christian sources, historical theology, and the broader biblical witness.<\/p>\n
Participants affirmed their belief that Scripture serves as the primary and final authority, while debating whether sola Scriptura<\/em> or prima Scriptura<\/em> best communicates this reality without descending into individualistic biblicism or isolating jargon. The Great Tradition, the rule of faith, the Apostles\u2019 Creed, and patristic documents (e.g., the Didache<\/em>) provide vital historical guardrails for biblical interpretation. Alexander Campbell read the Church Fathers daily, and early Restoration Movement leaders engaged Christian history extensively. We want people to follow their example, where possible, today.<\/p>\n A central discussion concerned whether Scripture\u2019s authority depends on later church councils or whether apostolic writings were authoritative from their inception. The group was in agreement that the apostolic texts carried intrinsic authority when they were first written and that the early church recognized this authority rather than creating it. Drawing on scholars such as Oscar Cullmann and Everett Ferguson, they characterized the church as a witness to the canon, not a judge that conferred authority on it.<\/p>\n The participants affirmed J. I. Packer\u2019s great summary of this point:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Church [fathers] no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity\u2026 Newton did not create gravity, but he recognized it.\u201d<\/p>\n There was a good discussion on how to define the final authority of Scripture. Some prefer the expression prima Scriptura<\/em>\u2014Scripture is our first and final authority, but we value the wisdom and learnings of other authorities in history. Others define sola Scriptura<\/em> in the same way and prefer the articulation of Anthony Lane in his essay, \u201cSola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan.\u201d[1]<\/a> This essay is essential reading for those who want an informed presentation on how to understand this issue.<\/p>\n One participant with a family member who is a well-educated Roman Catholic (PhD in theology) cautioned that critiques of Catholic authority should represent Catholic theology accurately and should refer to the whole biblical witness, not only the New Testament. Catholic theologians, he explained, may understand later doctrines and practices through the development of doctrine, with the Magisterium serving as an authoritative expression of the faith\u2019s development. Participants described this Catholic view, in terms of how they like to present it, as seeing tradition as a vehicle that preserves and unfolds the original deposit of faith.<\/p>\n The discussion distinguished between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts of tradition. Orthodoxy was described as rejecting the Catholic model of progressive doctrinal development and instead defining tradition as Scripture rightly understood and handed down in the life of the church.<\/p>\n Several times the discussion of beliefs in the early church returned to a well-known statement by Vincent of L\u00e9rins\u2014\u201cwhat has been believed everywhere, always, and by all\u201d\u2014which was also discussed as a traditional test of continuity with biblical teaching. Restorationist opposition to creeds, from the beginning\u2014even in the Declaration and Address<\/em> (one of the foundational documents in Restoration Movement history)\u2014was described as historically directed at their use as divisive or binding instruments, rather than at the everyday use of creeds or confessions. As noted, Alexander Campbell read the Church Fathers regularly.<\/p>\n But what actually is<\/em> tradition according to Orthodoxy and Catholicism? The Collective recommended that it would be worth expanding on a positive definition of tradition. Roman Catholics place their faith in their tradition as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, setting that tradition over against Scripture itself as the supreme authority. Restorationists, by contrast, place their faith in Scripture\u2014drawing on the insights of tradition\u2014while still maintaining Scripture as the final authority over against tradition.<\/p>\n Roman Catholicism claims that the Magisterium and Tradition function as the working out of the deposit of faith, so that \u201ceverything in Roman Catholicism derives from something that Scripture says.\u201d Eastern Orthodoxy does not operate with precisely the same definition; their understanding of Scripture and tradition is of them fused together, with tradition understood as Scripture rightly understood. The Roman Catholic use of the word \u201ctradition\u201d therefore differs from the Eastern Orthodox usage.<\/p>\n The Collective members maintain that Scripture remains the final authority or norm for Christian belief. This point is made in the Westminster Confession of 1646:<\/p>\n \u201cThe supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture\u201d (Westminster Confession, 1:10).<\/p>\n On the related question of whether the church is free to make church innovations where Scripture is silent, many Protestants, like Lutherans, have claimed that the church is free, provided nothing is contrary to Scripture. This is the same point made in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. For Luther, the practices justified on the grounds that they are not contrary to Scripture include infant baptism, Sunday worship, and the retention of images in churches. Puritans claimed, by contrast, that the church is limited to what is positively commanded by Scripture. Their way of thinking has much in common with certain streams of the Restoration Movement.<\/p>\n As an example of a healthy tradition, the Bible contains the raw materials for a doctrine of the Trinity; our collective members believe it cannot faithfully be interpreted other than in a Trinitarian manner, yet Scripture does not contain a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n The historic Protestant confessions affirm \u201cthe authority of tradition, creeds and the contemporary church,\u201d yet \u201cthese should be subordinated to Scripture. They are not judges like Holy Scripture but merely witnesses and expositions of the faith.\u201d[3]<\/a> Stated differently, sola Scriptura<\/em> is the assertion that the church can err. Tradition and the teaching office of the church are unavoidable and invaluable resources; they possess a real authority\u2014but not a final authority.[4]<\/a> In the words of the traditional formula, Scripture is the norma normans non normata<\/em>, the norm or rule that rules but is not itself ruled.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n The tradition of the ancient churches can look more uniform and consistent, on a surface reading, than they are in reality. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches must acknowledge the fragmentation of their churches: What is really catholic (i.e., universal)? Which branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church faithfully upholds the unchanging traditions? As one participant asked, \u201cIs the institution the church, or is the church beyond the institution?\u201d<\/p>\n We all have traditions. Let\u2019s help the emerging generation by carefully defining the proper role of tradition. Let\u2019s define it and show them how we consistently apply that understanding. We will soon publish a paper that provides an outline of how we can move in this direction. The original paper read before the meeting has also been upgraded with a preliminary guide on this point.<\/p>\n Historic creeds, structured Scripture readings, and modest church-calendar rhythms were discussed as potential countercultural resources that can root people against cultural drift\u2014provided they are paired with heart-level relational disciple making and intentional teaching of the young. These can be evaluated as tools of spiritual formation. The aim is not High-Church traditionalism, but the use of simple, historically-rooted elements to cultivate depth and stability.<\/p>\n A church rock band is cool for many and a turn-off for others. Wisdom is known by her children. Where does liturgy work in an effective evangelistic church tradition? Those at the meeting could not come up with strong examples, while acknowledging that such examples may exist.<\/p>\n A liturgical emphasis is typically found in declining mainline denominations. In those settings, the stability of liturgy often takes the place of an emphasis on trusting, knowing, and following Scripture. At the same time, several noted examples of effective low-church liturgies\u2014repeated sayings and statements that connect with and teach everyday people (e.g., Elevate City Church in Atlanta).<\/p>\n The group acknowledged the effectiveness of some forms of liturgy, even if limited. They can help participants identify with previous generations, or they can help with spiritual formation and a Christian mind (as with repeating the Lord\u2019s Prayer and the Apostles\u2019 Creed, which were used by Alexander Campbell and others). Liturgy can be a key to identity formation. When it comes to healthy liturgy, possible natural elements in step with the Restoration Movement tradition could include: (1) responsive Scripture reading, (2) the Lord\u2019s Prayer, (3) the Apostles\u2019 Creed, and (4) examining how we provide Communion.<\/p>\n The participants expressed great appreciation for the work of Restoration Movement scholar Everett Ferguson, among others. Ferguson provides us with a great legacy and track record\u2014a respected Restoration Movement leader widely regarded as one of the leading specialists in early Christianity and Patristics, with a reputation for meticulous, fact-driven scholarship that is respected by scholars of all Christian traditions. His professional honors include serving as president of the North American Patristics Society and receiving its Distinguished Service Award for more than thirty years of service. He also sat on the councils of the American Society of Church History and the Association Internationale d\u2019\u00c9tudes Patristiques, and co-edited the Journal of Early Christian Studies<\/em>.<\/p>\n His work is frequently cited across denominational lines\u2014by Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical, and Anabaptist scholars\u2014precisely because it is grounded in primary texts and careful historical method rather than confessional advocacy. Yet he described his work and his theological advocacy for distinctive Restoration Movement doctrines with these words:<\/p>\n \u201cI have been pleasantly surprised at the acceptance of my historical work across the religious spectrum\u2014Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, historically minded Evangelicals, Mennonites, and Church of the Brethren. That acceptance is in part due to the fact that the historical evidence is largely consistent with our ecclesiastical position.\u201d<\/p>\n He is especially valued for showing that practices such as believer\u2019s baptism, weekly communion, and plural eldership have strong continuity with second- and third-century evidence.<\/p>\n One of the scholars described how his study of early Christian spirituality initially led him to consider Orthodoxy, but he concluded that Christian catholicity\u2014the unity of believers in Christ\u2014does not require moving into a particular institution, especially one that claims that they alone \u201chave the fullness\u201d and are the \u201ctrue church.\u201d He affirmed \u201cone Lord, one faith, one baptism\u201d while maintaining that institutional migration was not necessary to belong to the wider church. He also could not rationalize their teaching on infant baptism in light of the New Testament teaching on this topic.<\/p>\n There was a significant discussion on how to present the \u201cC\u201d church and the \u201cc\u201d church. One attendee with extensive experience in the World Council of Churches noted that this can be a Trojan horse for progressivism; you must carefully define what you mean by \u201cunity.\u201d Is it co-laboring and partnering in practical ways of reaching lost people, disciple making, and so on? Then we should get behind those unity efforts.<\/p>\n Another stated, \u201cWe must pursue cooperation without compromise, because to not cooperate is to compromise.\u201d We must carefully define the essentials\u2014the Gospel of Jesus + Faith + Indwelling Holy Spirit. We have to pursue the right goal (telos<\/em>)\u2014for example, prioritizing evangelization or social justice. Partnerships are vital and need to be thought through, bearing in mind the collateral damage that comes without careful analysis.<\/p>\n The group\u2019s prayers emphasized fidelity to Scripture and apostolic teaching, humility, unity, mission, and lasting spiritual fruit. Participants urged the movement to focus outward and get on mission, rather than become preoccupied with internal disputes. There was a significant emphasis on relational disciple making and the hugely positive impact that RENEW.org Network churches are witnessing as more and more churches make the transition to a disciple making focus, with amazing results in terms of church health, baptisms, and life transformation. The group also prayed for struggling churches and for discussions that would strengthen the church beyond those present.<\/p>\n The participants saw the Restoration Movement\u2019s response to renewed interest in ancient Christian traditions as requiring both confidence in Scripture and serious engagement with history. They argued for articulating Restoration convictions on baptism, church unity, and biblical authority without ignoring the movement\u2019s own divisions, cultural complexity, and need for renewal.<\/p>\n Everyone agreed that we need to center on disciple making with Scripture as our final authority. That is our anchor while we engage early church history, moderate liturgical tools, and understand the patristic tradition.<\/p>\n As a Collective, we encourage you to hold tightly to Scripture as God\u2019s reliable Word and refuse to reshape it to fit one\u2019s feelings or the pull of traditions or culture. Trust and follow the Jesus of Scripture as Savior, Lord, and King. Remember that salvation and disciple making belong together. Make disciple making<\/em> the central priority of your church. So many people gravitate to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism because they are looking for depth. Go deep.<\/p>\n God is at work doing amazing things in everyday churches that make Scripture their first and final authority. Stay resolute. Keep trusting, following, and making disciples of Jesus as we look ahead to his return.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Anthony Lane, \u201cSola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,\u201d in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture<\/em>, by Philip E. Satterthwaite and David F. Wright (Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source, 1994), 297-327.<\/span><\/p>\n [2]<\/a> See Anthony Lane, \u201cSola Scriptura,\u201d in Pathway<\/em>, 319.<\/span><\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Anthony Lane, \u201cSola Scriptura,\u201d in Pathway<\/em>, 323.<\/span><\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Anthony Lane, \u201cSola Scriptura,\u201d in Pathway<\/em>, 324.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n“Alexander Campbell read the Church Fathers daily, and early Restoration Movement leaders engaged Christian history extensively.”<\/em><\/h3>\n
\n3. We Need to Define a Proper Role for Tradition.<\/h2>\n
\n“The Collective members maintain that Scripture remains the final authority or norm for Christian belief.”<\/em><\/h3>\n
\n
\n“Scripture is the norma normans non normata, the norm or rule that rules but is not itself ruled.”<\/em><\/h3>\n
\n4. We Need Openness and Critical Evaluation of Liturgical and Catechetical Practices.<\/h2>\n
\n“The aim is not High-Church traditionalism, but the use of simple, historically-rooted elements to cultivate depth and stability.”<\/em><\/h3>\n
\n5. We Need to Follow Alexander Campbell, Everett Ferguson, and Others to Carefully Read and Know Church History.<\/h2>\n
6. We Need to Remember and Practice the Proper Quest for Unity.<\/h2>\n
\n“You must carefully define what you mean by ‘unity.'”<\/em><\/h3>\n
\nIn Summary<\/h2>\n
\n