What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical Restoration
What if we radically restored first-century faith and practice in our own time and culture? Smith pleads for a more complete restoration by exploring the areas of youth ministry, elders, the Lord's Supper, gathered worhsip,and the Christian lifestyle.
320 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2001
1 person is currently reading
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 23, 2020
Early in the 1800's, Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone allowed their study of the Bible to guide them away from the structures and forms of the existing religious world; and lead them to attempt to be "Christians only" according to the example and pattern of the New Testament. Out of that small beginning, grew one of the largest religious groups that was "birthed" on American soil. Three distinct religious groups began from this -- Disciples of Christ, independent Christian church, and churches of Christ. Sadly, over the next 175 (approximately) years, those groups don't look a whole lot different than any other religious group. I'm sure that I would get arguments about that, but that is the way that I see it.
In 2001, well-known author, F. LaGard Smith, challenged the members of the more supposed conservative wing of that group, a challenge to reconsider the original intention of people like Campbell and Stone; and see if those churches are really living up to the original intention. In the book RADICAL RESTORATION, Smith challenges us to look at the "churches/congregations" that we read about in the New Testament, and really attempt to determine if we look, practice, and act like they did. He tackles such subjects as building that we meet in, the "Lord's Supper/communion", our "worship" assembly, pulpit ministers (or pastors, as some are calling themselves now), youth ministers, elders, etc. I will gladly confess that he makes strong arguments for many of the points that he addresses. Sadly, after nearly 20 years, his book has had little effect on the steady march of "restoration movement" churches continuing to fit into their culture.
I did not agree with everything that he said, there was a lot that I agreed with, and there is some that I will have to think about some more. If you are a member of a "Restoration movement" congregation church (of any of the three wings), but particularly the churches of Christ; I would recommend you read this book. It will make you think, and it may drive you back to a study of the Bible -- and that would be the best result of all.
In 2001, well-known author, F. LaGard Smith, challenged the members of the more supposed conservative wing of that group, a challenge to reconsider the original intention of people like Campbell and Stone; and see if those churches are really living up to the original intention. In the book RADICAL RESTORATION, Smith challenges us to look at the "churches/congregations" that we read about in the New Testament, and really attempt to determine if we look, practice, and act like they did. He tackles such subjects as building that we meet in, the "Lord's Supper/communion", our "worship" assembly, pulpit ministers (or pastors, as some are calling themselves now), youth ministers, elders, etc. I will gladly confess that he makes strong arguments for many of the points that he addresses. Sadly, after nearly 20 years, his book has had little effect on the steady march of "restoration movement" churches continuing to fit into their culture.
I did not agree with everything that he said, there was a lot that I agreed with, and there is some that I will have to think about some more. If you are a member of a "Restoration movement" congregation church (of any of the three wings), but particularly the churches of Christ; I would recommend you read this book. It will make you think, and it may drive you back to a study of the Bible -- and that would be the best result of all.
March 26, 2025
The time is ripe for a reconsideration of F. LaGard Smith’s 2001 book, Radical Restoration, in which he critiqued the Churches of Christ of his day as being unwittingly denominational and captive to culture rather than truly committed to restoring the pattern of the NT church as they claimed (45-62). Trapped in their own “Flatland,” they were unable to see the extent to which they had moved away from prescribed biblical patterns of communion, fellowship meals, evangelism, leadership, and gathering places (17-28). Among other prescriptions, Smith advocated for replacing our large meeting houses with smaller house churches loosely networked together (145-166). In the quarter of a century since his book was published, few among Churches of Christ have taken him up on the proposal. However, in 2025, a lack of growth among Churches of Christ and the attendant financial realities of maintaining large buildings with shrinking congregants have led many churches to shut their doors for good, creating renewed interest in the house church model. At the same, many in the “denominational world” are shying away from strict denominational identities and embracing the house church model as an antidote. Thus, a fresh appraisal of Smith’s work seems appropriate. Unfortunately, while prescient in many ways about future trends (65), Smith’s thinking remains stuck in a patternistic paradigm rooted in a kind of rationalism that has lost credibility in the post-modern era (of which he was an early prophet and critic). Since Smith is critiquing COCs from within this same foundation of Scottish common-sense rationalism, it severely limits the usefulness of his arguments for the present moment.
The pattern paradigm which Smith defends in chapter 4 is more an occasion for departures from institutional Churches of Christ than a fruitful means to restore the NT church. This is because the pattern paradigm makes too much of imagined consistency in biblical precedent to promote the kind of unity and radical faithfulness to the text that Smith seeks to commend. Simply put, the word “pattern” is never used in the NT to describe an approved set of regulations for “doctrine, organization, and practice” as Smith maintains (73); thus, Smith has to resort to vague defenses such as “Jesus himself was a pattern” (76). Granted he was, how does this recognition imply an obligation on our part to “[piece] together a complicated puzzle” (79) of church practice? Proof-texts like Phil 3:17 and 2 Tim 1:13-14 are decontextualized to refer to a divinely ordained pattern rather than their actual referents having to do with Paul’s integrity as a preacher (76). It is likewise dubious to use OT pattern texts about the construction of the tabernacle and the keeping of the law (75-77) as instructive for worship under the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:7-13). Beyond a passing reference on page 61, Smith gives no attention to how the pattern paradigm might be occasioned more by Enlightenment values and American culture than by a truly fresh reading of Scripture. He also does not consider the likelihood that practices of NT churches are the result of the specific contexts of the various churches described and thus not meant to be prescriptive for churches throughout time. For example, it is likely the early Christians met in houses out of necessity because of persecution and a lack of means (Acts 1:13; 2:2, 46; 12:12; Rom 16:23). Such an accommodation resembled the traditional synagogue worship with which many Jewish Jesus followers were familiar with and excluded from in the first century (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). This does not prove that all the churches referenced in the NT met exclusively in houses (Acts 2:46) nor that such should be prescriptive for all time. Smith admits that he is not confident enough “to say unequivocally that the house church was a divinely-intended arrangement” (166). Yet, he goes on to say he has “no doubt” that moving away from house churches “fundamentally changed the form and nature of worship as practiced in the apostolic church” (166). Either this is the prescribed form, or it isn’t, and if it can’t be proved that it is, why insist upon it or any other form depicted in the NT?
Smith cannot escape one of the major problems of the pattern paradigm; it is simply impossible to decide for certain between what is prescribed and what is described in the NT, particularly when there are counterexamples of pattern (Acts 2:46). At one point, Smith admits that figuring out the pattern “is not nearly as clear-cut and straightforward as we’ve typically assumed” (79). This does not dissuade him from trying however, going on to say that the difficulty in discernment must be God’s intention and that this fits with a “broader pattern of minimizing externals … and allowing for necessary cultural adaptation throughout the centuries” (80). That this admission throws the entire project of pattern reconstruction in doubt never seems to occur to Smith. Smith wants to maintain that “to whatever extent that we are, in fact, significantly different from the church described in the New Testament, to that extent we are ‘fundamentally flawed’” (34). However, is it necessary or even possible to abstract a “church paradigm” from its particular historical contexts? The NT churches operated within contexts very different from our own and their culture impacted their organization and worship in many ways (including meeting in house churches, taking common meals, pooling their resources together, footwashing, etc.). Indeed, OT laws and worship practices were also influenced by their historical and religious contexts (see the parallels between temple worship in Israel with her ANE neighbors or between Mosaic laws and Hammurabi). Perhaps the pattern here is a desire to worship God through and in our own culture and time. With that in mind, there are many practical reasons why house churches might be helpful in our time, but little to believe that they bring us closer in form to a “pure” NT church.
The pattern paradigm which Smith defends in chapter 4 is more an occasion for departures from institutional Churches of Christ than a fruitful means to restore the NT church. This is because the pattern paradigm makes too much of imagined consistency in biblical precedent to promote the kind of unity and radical faithfulness to the text that Smith seeks to commend. Simply put, the word “pattern” is never used in the NT to describe an approved set of regulations for “doctrine, organization, and practice” as Smith maintains (73); thus, Smith has to resort to vague defenses such as “Jesus himself was a pattern” (76). Granted he was, how does this recognition imply an obligation on our part to “[piece] together a complicated puzzle” (79) of church practice? Proof-texts like Phil 3:17 and 2 Tim 1:13-14 are decontextualized to refer to a divinely ordained pattern rather than their actual referents having to do with Paul’s integrity as a preacher (76). It is likewise dubious to use OT pattern texts about the construction of the tabernacle and the keeping of the law (75-77) as instructive for worship under the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:7-13). Beyond a passing reference on page 61, Smith gives no attention to how the pattern paradigm might be occasioned more by Enlightenment values and American culture than by a truly fresh reading of Scripture. He also does not consider the likelihood that practices of NT churches are the result of the specific contexts of the various churches described and thus not meant to be prescriptive for churches throughout time. For example, it is likely the early Christians met in houses out of necessity because of persecution and a lack of means (Acts 1:13; 2:2, 46; 12:12; Rom 16:23). Such an accommodation resembled the traditional synagogue worship with which many Jewish Jesus followers were familiar with and excluded from in the first century (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). This does not prove that all the churches referenced in the NT met exclusively in houses (Acts 2:46) nor that such should be prescriptive for all time. Smith admits that he is not confident enough “to say unequivocally that the house church was a divinely-intended arrangement” (166). Yet, he goes on to say he has “no doubt” that moving away from house churches “fundamentally changed the form and nature of worship as practiced in the apostolic church” (166). Either this is the prescribed form, or it isn’t, and if it can’t be proved that it is, why insist upon it or any other form depicted in the NT?
Smith cannot escape one of the major problems of the pattern paradigm; it is simply impossible to decide for certain between what is prescribed and what is described in the NT, particularly when there are counterexamples of pattern (Acts 2:46). At one point, Smith admits that figuring out the pattern “is not nearly as clear-cut and straightforward as we’ve typically assumed” (79). This does not dissuade him from trying however, going on to say that the difficulty in discernment must be God’s intention and that this fits with a “broader pattern of minimizing externals … and allowing for necessary cultural adaptation throughout the centuries” (80). That this admission throws the entire project of pattern reconstruction in doubt never seems to occur to Smith. Smith wants to maintain that “to whatever extent that we are, in fact, significantly different from the church described in the New Testament, to that extent we are ‘fundamentally flawed’” (34). However, is it necessary or even possible to abstract a “church paradigm” from its particular historical contexts? The NT churches operated within contexts very different from our own and their culture impacted their organization and worship in many ways (including meeting in house churches, taking common meals, pooling their resources together, footwashing, etc.). Indeed, OT laws and worship practices were also influenced by their historical and religious contexts (see the parallels between temple worship in Israel with her ANE neighbors or between Mosaic laws and Hammurabi). Perhaps the pattern here is a desire to worship God through and in our own culture and time. With that in mind, there are many practical reasons why house churches might be helpful in our time, but little to believe that they bring us closer in form to a “pure” NT church.
March 12, 2022
Frankly, I found the book a bit difficult to read...not so much for the content, but I suppose the intellectual level comparison of myself with the author. Brother Smith seemed to have many "arguments" against the structure of the way the church is presented in the 21st century as compared to the church of the Bible in the first century. Well,I guess I would have to say "Yes...there would be quite A LOT of things different between the two" based on modern technology and such. He seemed to imply it would be "better" for the church to be more like the church of the first century. I'm not so sure we would have a "better" church either way. I would think we should be the church we read in the Bible AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, in the time period we are LIVING IN! Sure there are imperfections...as ALL people are IMPERFECT! We need Jesus in our lives and we need His teaching to guide us. The church of Christ (those with this name on their signs) are the CLOSEST group of people claiming to be Christian that I am aware of who are trying to be the Church of Christ as taught in the Bible. All I can say to anyone reading is investigate this statement. If you like what you have learned stick with it.
September 23, 2014
I very much appreciated this book. I recognize that Smith built up a lot before he got to his major points - but I think that's because he was writing for a Church of Christ audience - and audience he knew would be primarily recalcitrant and would need lots of encouraging to press on and hear him out.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants is interested in living out church life the way God set forth through His apostles.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants is interested in living out church life the way God set forth through His apostles.
July 25, 2012
Quit reading about page 81, just could not get into it. This book may be good for the Church of Christ denomonation, but I did not get it. I'll send it back to the thriftstore where I got it. Our Church saw alot of what he was saying back in the 1980s. Whish is Christianity returning to first century Christianity. He seemed to make it all confusing.
June 17, 2014
Good concept but Poor execution.
Way too much exposition and lead up to the areas that Smith feels needs to be restored (more than halfway through the book). Even then I expected a less wishy washy approach based on the title as well as a deeper look at more than just a handful of issues.
Lots of potential, but it just didn't work for me.
Way too much exposition and lead up to the areas that Smith feels needs to be restored (more than halfway through the book). Even then I expected a less wishy washy approach based on the title as well as a deeper look at more than just a handful of issues.
Lots of potential, but it just didn't work for me.
April 2, 2008
As the title states, a call for a reexamination of the concepts on which the Church of Christ philosophy is based: direct command, approved apostolic example, and necessary inference. Recommended for refugees from the CofC.
August 20, 2009
I'm reviewing this one that I read several years ago - in prep for a Monday night discussion with a couple of friends.
November 12, 2014
LaGard Smith's attempt at being radical is successful. Repetitive. Redundant.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews