The Inadequacy of Primitivism
In his book "Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America," Richard Hughes identifies the forces driving the restoration ideal in the theology of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. While Campbell thought eliminating all things of structure and practice not found in the Bible could unite Protestants, if not Protestant churches, Stone viewed the Bible as a model for holy living and believed in the freedom of Christians to interpret the Bible. Joined in a common cause, the Stone-Campbell movement worked towards restoring their churches to the primitive church of the first century.

Even while applauding its intent, Hughes astutely identifies a number of flaws with the whole restorationist or primitivistic approach. First, what exactly is it that is to be restored? For example, where some like Campbell and Stone sought to restore structure and doctrine, others sought to restore lifestyle, others gifts of the Holy Spirit, still others a counterculture worldview. The point is that the things to be restored to "the way they were in the first century" are based upon one's perceptions of the failings of the contemporary church and one's perceptions of the primitive church. As a result of this "picking and choosing," primitivism means different things to different people-- it is extremely sensitive to the circumstances of the one doing the restoring. It is not as dissociated from history, as unbiased, nor as pure as it sounds.

Second, by its very nature, primitivism cannot handle history. The primitive church (Jerusalem, Acts 2) had not yet experienced history, yet it grew out of its own primitivism without falling away. The early church held to one primitive gospel (Galatians 1:6ff), but clearly grew or matured in its structure (ecclesiology) and thought  (theology). By contrast, the pure primitivist impulse denies the opportunity for growth in structure and thought beyond the designated primitive model.

As an example, consider that one of us might buy a brand new house. It cannot remain a new house for long. Over time, it experiences wear and tear that degrades it; it also is the beneficiary of work that improves it, such as the cultivation of trees and shrubs. Just because it isn't new anymore doesn't mean it is dilapidated and in need of destruction. An old house is neither better nor worse than a new house, they are just different.

It's not that the example of the early church is useless or that Scripture is not authoritative, or that there isn't a primitive gospel to which we must be faithful. But there is more to faithfulness than static, rigid primitivism. Primitivism has always been open to the charge that it makes its primitivistic model and hermeneutic more authoritative than God himself! But if the early church could "grow up" spiritually and grow in its structure and understanding, so should we.

A New Theology
Hughes identified three main approaches to the future of the churches of Christ as the last century ended. The first was the "status-quo" approach of the mainline churches-- walking the tightrope between sectarianism and denominationalism without dealing with the issues at hand.

If we were to follow this approach, we would simply make cosmetic changes to the "good ship ICC" with all that has been learned over the years, and set sail with a "repainted" version of this approach. This seems attractive and is psychologically comfortable-- but it ignores the theological evaluations that must take place.

The second approach identified is the "sectarian approach" of the Crossroads/Boston Movement/ICC. This was basically a re-primitivization attempt. Interestingly, we have now come full circle in much the same way as the mainline Churches of Christ, now facing these same issues as they a quarter of a century later.

If we were to follow this option in the ICC today, we would simply engage in another re-primitivization by purging all of the "evils" that are not part of the primitivist vision. Worse than the first option, this is a perpetuation of the primitivist cycle.

The third approach identified by Hughes is the "progressive approach" where the traditional Church of Christ hermeneutic (command, approved example and necessary inference) is challenged, along with many of the suppositions that have guided the movement-- like the sufficiency of primitivism. Because it challenges the very cornerstone ideas of the movement, this has been a controversial issue with them.

As far as I can tell, revisiting our theology at this time is the only sensible and logical approach, as I find the other options inadequate and not worthy of consideration.  We have theological problems that need theological solutions. However, as in the Churches of Christ, I expect this to be a controversial issue with us as well. Certainly others will argue for the other options.

Overcoming Subjectivism and "Feel-Good-ism"
Our modern culture has become increasingly superficial and subjective. In the ICC, we have drunk deeply from this cup of subjectivity. This movement has been raised and nourished with "feel-good-ism" characterized by the natural enthusiasm of idealistic young people, dynamic growth, energetic services, and the like.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these. But we have become a people with little substance beneath the surface. We have become a generation that is Scripturally and historically uneducated and ill-equipped to perceive these issues, much less deal with them. Consequently, many see the problems only on the surface (e.g. my Bible talk leader is mean to me, or people don't come to midweek services) and are likely to be satisfied with superficial solutions (e.g. I wish my Bible talk leader would quit being mean to me, I wish people would come to midweek services). It is easy to see why the "status-quo" or "superficial change" approach has such appeal-- it is easier, and is all that most people care about. Indeed, most people have learned to live within the system as it is and would rather do anything else than invest themselves in a painful process to change the system. To those with a superficial orientation, the recent rush of superficial changes seem significant or huge. The whole world, as they perceive it, has changed, and they are happy about it.

Now good changes should be applauded in any context, even if they are superficial. I applaud the good changes made so far. But can we realistically think we have fixed the core issues behind the problems without a more thorough evaluation, without more substantial changes? The time has come for this movement to overcome theological laziness and superficiality, and to produce real theological answers to the real theological issues at the core of our problems.