Radical Restoration is the name of a new book and also a "new" movement. The author is F. LaGard Smith. The book has the subtitle of, "A call for pure and simple Christianity." When I was initially contacted about the inception of this movement several years ago, I totally discounted it as being able to achieve any serious credulity. I was wrong. Radical Restoration was introduced at the right time. I say this because the United States, England, and some other parts of the world were ready for it (timing is the main factor in the success of any movement). This is the case because many are presently opposed to organized religion, they want something different, social, and they seek spontaneity because the informal and casual are important to them. Radical Restoration offers all these things and more. The appeal of Radical Restoration is based on the corruption of religion, but Smith does not offer the solution, only an extreme reaction that only constitutes another problem.

     Crucial to the acceptance of the book and the practice of the movement is chapter one. In fact, chapter one is the only chapter of any substance out of the thirteen chapters comprising the book. Some have viewed chapter one as weird, but I see it with its basic design in mind. Chapter one is an excellent attempt toward mind preparation and manipulation, even a mild form of hypnosis. Author Smith uses Edwin Abbott's book Flatland to set the stage. Smith wrote:

     Smith masterfully continues to play with the reader's mind:

     Smith progresses to introduce the Sphere family, those with superior enlightenment whose perception is able to see things that the inhabitants of Flatland cannot see in their limited two-dimensional world. Hear Smith as he reaches the climax of his mind preparatory venture:

     I understand that a number who have reviewed Smith's Radical Restoration do not at all understand chapter one. However, Smith must play with the reader's mind and manipulate him into thinking in "three-dimensional terms." What are these three-dimensional terms? Smith's ideas, logic, and mental gymnastics, of course. In reality, Smith has nothing new to sell, just old false doctrines presented as three-dimensional. Let us now turn our focus to the seven basic tenets of Radical Restoration. Let me suggest that Radical Restoration achieves all the goals of a movement seeking to alter. For instance, Radical Restoration admittedly seeks to address and change the organization and worship of the local church (Radical Restoration, pg. 7).

     Radical Restoration on preachers. First, please appreciate what the scriptures teach about preachers of the gospel. There were preachers in the first century such as Paul who planted or started churches and those that came and edified these churches (I Cor. 3: 4-9, 2 Tim. 4: 1-5). Men, such as Timothy, often served as regular pulpit men for churches (2 Tim. 4: 1-5).

     Radical Restoration denies such a legitimate placement and work of preachers. In a hint of where he will subsequently journey in his book, Smith wrote:

     I admit that reform is often needed regarding preachers, but what does Smith have in mind? Smith advocates the old mutual edification doctrine in which "evangelists" are men who only seek to teach the lost and only elders address the church (Radical Restoration, pg. 152, 153). Consider Smith as he disparagingly speaks of elders and preachers:

     Regional elders, a teaching of Radical Restoration. The scriptures teach that each autonomous local church is to appoint men to serve as elders or overseers when men who meet the qualification are present (Acts 14: 23, I Pet. 5: 1, 2, I Tim. 3, Tit. 1, I Tim. 5: 17). The scriptures know nothing of elders of one local church overseeing another local church or of regional elders.

     Radical Restoration distorts biblical elders. Hear Smith:

     Smith has stated that each house church constitutes a local church. Yet, he has elder's oversight extended and even advocates churches making up a larger and recognizable congregation. Such language and concepts are foreign to the New Testament.

     Radical Restoration regarding the designation "church of Christ." It seems that every major apostasy has sought to attack not only the organization and worship of the Lord's church, but also her very identity. "Churches of Christ" is a scriptural designation (Rom. 16: 16). Jesus is the founder of his church and he shed his blood for her (Matt. 16: 18; Acts 20: 28). It is, therefore, no surprise that early churches were identified in a way to glorify Jesus. I concede that "church of Christ" can and has on occasion been denominationally used. However, an abuse does not negate that which is proper and authorized.

     "Church of God" is also a scriptural adjective and one that is severely abused by some; yet, Smith recommends "The church of God" (Ibid.). Again, I suggest there is an obvious agenda to destroy the structure, worship, and identification of Jesus' church.

     Radical Restoration pertaining to house churches. Early Christians met in a number of circumstances and facilities. They met, for instance, in the temple, an apparent commercial building, and in houses (Acts 2: 46; 20: 8; Phili. 1: 2, Rom. 16: 4).

     At the very core of Radical Restoration is the matter of Smith's concept of house churches. Therefore, Smith insists that the early Christians simply met in houses and that Christians today are to do the same. Smith contends that the church at Corinth met in privates houses (Radical Restoration, pg. 178). He so contends even though we are told that the Corinthians "came together in one place" (I Cor. 14: 23, it appears that they were not meeting in houses, I Cor. 11: 22). Meeting in houses is necessary to having the required climate and ambiance to produce Radical Restoration. Consider Smith's teaching:

     Smith views buildings owned by churches in which to meet as so opposed to his brand of "Christianity" that he urges Christians to do away with the meeting places (Radical Restoration, pg. 244, 245, 269).

     Spontaneity in worship, Radical Restoration style. Christians are to worship in "spirit" and in "truth" (Jn. 4: 24). Simply ritualistic worship is condemned, but worship without structure is also forbidden (I Cor. 14: 31, 33, 40). Smith writes about the advantage of house church arrangements and says:

     An example of informality used by Smith is a Thanksgiving at his house. "…Then we eagerly filled our plates and scattered all over the house…All afternoon, the talking and laughter never seemed to stop…" (Radical Restoration, pg. 145).

     No Lord's Day contribution, according to Radical Restoration. The local church has work assigned to it by God. This work consists of teaching the lost, edifying the saved, and relieving needy saints when the circumstance is present (I Tim. 3: 15; Eph. 4: 16; I Tim. 5: 16). The scriptures emphatically teach the support of preachers (I Cor. 9: 14, see 9-13). In a specific case that required financing, we find detailed teaching as to how it was to be done. On the Lord's Day, each was to contribute, and this was to be placed in the treasury (I Cor. 16: 1, 2). Since the church requires financing to do its work, it is apparent that the Holy Spirit meant for the specific example to serve generally. The original expression (kata mian sabbatou) literally means, "Upon every first day of the week." Hence, it is apparent that the Holy Spirit had more in mind than an isolated, one-time event. Radical Restoration, though, is opposed to such giving. Smith wrote:

     It goes without saying that if Smith has his way, there will be no buildings owned by churches, no regular preachers in the pulpits, and utility bills, etc. to be paid. If there is no checking account and no established identity of a local church, really preferred by Smith, much can be done on a cash basis; hence, really no need for a treasury.

     Radical Restoration on the Lord's Supper.  The early church regularly partook of the Lord's Supper (Acts 2: 42, 20: 7, I Cor. 11: 23-29). In fact, the Lord's Supper was an important part of the Lord's Day worship. The Lord's Supper consisted of the fruit of the vine, representative of Jesus' blood and unleavened bread, emblematic of Jesus' pure body (Matt. 26: 26-29). The Lord's Supper was and is far removed from being a common meal, consumed for physical nourishment. Radical Restoration, however, has concluded that the Lord's Supper must be partaken of along with a common meal. He refers to this whole act as "table fellowship" in the house churches. Smith began to attempt to cause doubt about how Christians today observe the Lord's Supper even in his preface, "Do we, for example, observe the Lord's Supper in the same way as the early disciples…?" (Radical Restoration, pg. 13). Smith calls the Lord's Supper "A memorial within a meal." Consider some excerpts from Radical Restoration:

     Smith believes that the early Christians used fermented drink at their meals and, apparently, regular bread for the Lord's Supper (cp. Prov. 23: 31).

     Smith provides an example as to his idea of "table fellowship" in his own personal experience (inclusive of the Lord's Supper):

     In this connection, Smith makes his point:

     At this point, it ought to be plain to the average reader that Radical Restoration centers on the "house-church" concept. Smith's house-church is essential to remove the pulpit and formal preaching, the pews that suggest something different than a social gathering, to remove any formality of a "church setting" and, instead, have a house, informal setting. This climate is essential to Smith's "table fellowship" in which the "Lord's Supper" is placed. Gathering around the dinner table, sharing spiritual ideas is Smith's version of worship, while they engage in "table fellowship."

     As an amateur historian, I am watching the acceptance of Radical Restoration, especially within some churches of Christ. Various degrees and stages of Radical Restoration are being seen. A number of churches that have informally accepted parts of Radical Restoration have now formed "house-churches" but they are retaining their buildings, coming together to meet in them on occasion. Some have formed "elders" to oversee each house church and then they use their buildings for their "regional meetings." Some "Churches of Christ" that have accepted the social gospel are having little trouble moving to Smith's "table fellowship" idea of the Lord's Supper. By setting up Smith's "house-churches" with their informal setting around the kitchen table and sharing religious ideas, some of the churches that have been hesitant to accept "table fellowship" (a common meal including the "Lord's Supper") are now leaning in that direction. In preparing this material on Radical Restoration, I have received numerous telephone calls and emails from preachers around the country telling me of the presence of Radical Restoration in their areas, sometimes in their churches. A couple of preachers within churches of Christ have told me of the churches where they preach dividing over Radical Restoration. I just heard of one church selling their building and meeting in houses, apparently under the influence of Radical Restoration. The Radical Restoration Movement is not a solution to corruption within organized religion, it is, I repeat, an extreme reaction. Taken to its ultimate application, Radical Restoration will reduce churches into groups of a hand full with little ability to do the work of the Lord, no regular meeting places, no treasuries, no legal designation, no qualified preachers, no autonomy due to the regional elders concept, and a reduced informal family setting. In my studies of various aberrant movements, I have never witnessed a movement that is more self-destructive than Radical Restoration. Notwithstanding, Radical Restoration is being accepted and is multiplying! Instead of viewing Radical Restoration as three-dimensional, I suggest it should be viewed as simply dementia.  (For related reading, see "I Corinthians 11: 20-22, 33, 34, What Were They Doing?")