We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 4 is entitled, “Recover our heritage as a unity movement.”
Below the stern likeness of Thomas Campbell is the most quoted line in our history outside the Bible itself: “The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.” This is taken from his Declaration and Address, the most famous document of our heritage, being an angry denunciation of division among Christians and a call for the unity of all God’s people.
Campbell wrote those words in 1809, two years before he started his first congregation known as a “Church of Christ.” And yet he wrote of “the Church of Christ upon earth” as if it already existed. This shows that he had no such mentality that Christ’s church did not even exist and that he was about to “restore” it according to some recognizable New Testament pattern. Campbell believed that the church of Jesus Christ not only then existed but that “the gates of Hades” had not prevailed against it since the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit breathed it into existence.
It was nonetheless in need of renewal or reformation, and that was his mission, especially in terms of restoring love, unity, and fellowship to the church now tragically torn asunder by partyism. In this insightful statement, capsuled in a single line, Thomas Campbell bequeaths to us the one important truth about the church that we must recapture in our time if we are to find our roots: The Body of Christ upon earth has existed all through the centuries and it has always by its very nature been one. (pp. 50-51).
Dr. Robert Richardson, Alexander Campbell’s longtime associate and personal physician, was, according to Campbell himself, the best interpreter of what the movement was all about. I could show you where he wrote in Campbell’s paper, the Millennial Harbinger, that “This movement was born with a passion for unity, and unity has been its engrossing theme.” (pp. 54-55).
Is it true today? Would an objective historian believe that we have the same passion for unity with which we began?
At this stage, acknowledge the existence and validity other groups attempting the same journey and seek common purpose with them. (Kind of like the Campbells did in the first place.)
I’m surprised there are no comments yet on this “hot button” topic – or at least it used to be a hot button.
Can it be that we have become more adept at dividing and splitting churches than we are at presenting a message of unity? Have we, who began with reformation (restoration) as a means to unity allowed a desire to recreate the first century church exactly ,turn us into people who divide over any perceived error in a brother?
It was 80 years from the publication of the Declaration and Address to the signing of The Address and Declaration at Sand Creek. It was then less than 20 years until the Christian Church and the Church of Christ were officially recognized as different groups. How sad.
And every split makes a sad history even more tragic!
The Campbells were better than pure unity; they worked on what to unify as. Then came the NT pattern idea, so we could argue over the correct pattern. Not to throw out the baby with the bath water: it is important to not make Christ’s message as unity or perfecting the NT church.
Lots of grey area. Have we learned how to sort it out?
Larry,
I’m not sure I’m following you. Let me add this quotation from Alexander Campbell’s The Christian System —
The founders of the Restoration Movement never, ever tried to build unity on agreement on such doctrines as IM or weekly communion. In fact, when A. Campbell published a series on the “Ancient Order” regarding acts of worship, he explicitly stated that his views were not to be bound as tests of fellowship. That particular error came a couple of generations later — and led to the countless divisions we see today.
While you can find lots of individual exceptions (and perhaps even a growing number), no candid observer would find that the churches of achrist as a whole are serious about finding unity among all Christians, unless such unity is based upon Church of Christ doctrinal positions.
True as this is, there are nonetheless criterias (even in the D&A) for fellowship. So while we shall not view worship styles as binding, we must all strive to hold fast to ALL that Christ has commanded us: By explicit commands, approved precedents and – if need be, but reluctantly – by necessary inferences.
I see certain commands of our Lord trampled on today, and I can’t see why we should not address them. In Love, but very firmly.
One must not forget also, that the existing unity of Christ’s Church in the D&A were not the sum tital of all denopminations, but the sum total of all who believe and obey Christ. This exsiting unity must be put into practice, which was the main pupose of the D&A. It is simply not enough to “confess” unity, we must live it. And therefore it is necessary to step out of denopminationalism, the pforsake all man-made creeds and – as Barton Stone put it – to die to one’s one sectarianism.
Now, as soon as The Campbells and Stone put this into practice, they started a movement twoards unity. THe others however stayed where they were! And this separated the Restoration Movement from the Denominations! They are still there where our fathers had left them 200 years ago! They did not move a bit towards untiy, but moved largely toward more conformuty to the world. The situation today is even more desperate than back then!
The road to unity is still the same: Leave the denominations and start believing and obeying all than outr Lord has commanded. Put away all man-made innovations, such as female elders which are explicitly contrary to scripture; put aside your own fancy names and be content with the name Christian; be separate from this world. … Yes, I had to point out 1Co 14:37-38 again, because in this respect the Progressives among us who tend to speak more about unity act very schismatic. And that’s why I cannot follow your pursuit of unity. Where does it lead us, when unity is – in the end – based upon omitting Scripture when it is dividing us? One of the key-reasions for the divisions is our flesh that does not want to accept or obey God’s Word and finds very cunning ways to explain it way theologically …
And then there is the talk of unity with those who don’t even baptize (Methodists, Presbyterians were mentioned) – Again: Eph 4:4-6 – you can’t skip the one baptism. Therefore the infant-baptizers are outside the definitions of unity in God’s Word!
See, this is all not about unity, but about tolerance. And that’s simply not God’s way. Do you understand the difference, Jay?
Alexander
Alexander,
The difficulty I have with what you say, is that you seem to be setting up yourself as the arbiter of who is properly following God’s way.
“Who are you to judge another man’s servant?” I believe it says that somewhere, doesn’t it?
I will teach what I believe, but I choose to leave the judging to God.
I am simply speaking of facts, David:
For instance:
Seriously: I don’t like this text. But I would not dare to speak out against commands of the Lord (1Co 14:37 in the majority text has commands-plural). And this is clear and firm: He is not recognoized. Who? Whover objects to the creation-order-based rule that women are to be silent and submissive.
Now, who does the judging? It is not I, David, but Paul in the Holy Spirit.
And it is the same Spirit who included in his sevenfold unity the One Baptism (Eph 4:4-6 – I am repetitive, I know). Even Alexander Campbell made this clear: It is not a big deal if somone holds to theological convictions like Arminian or Calvinist – these are interpretations where we may differ, But as a corner stone of unity he names:
You see, differing opinions on eschatology are possible – but we must not deny the resurrection. Differing views on conditional or uncoditional assurance of salvation are no criteria for fellowship – but saying we need not obey one of Christ’s commands leads to not being recognized. And we may even follow liturgical or non-litergical worship traditions, with or without intruments – but we cannot allow unbaptized people to partake of the Lord#s Supper, because you need to be a disciple first.
Therefore I refuse to extend full fellowship to unbaptized Christians (and the Lord’s Supper is a symbol of such unity) – because by definition they are not yet fully in the covenant.
But who set up this marker? Again, not I. But that’s the way we are to be saved: By faith and baptism (Mark 16:16).
I must add that it took the Restoration Movement about three years until the first baptisms occured, because they had to grow out of their prespyterian upbringing. Yet, since they were determined to restore the church, they were free to asked questions that are forbidden or brushed aside in the denominations. So, yes, I believe we must be patient with one another; but we should not neglect the criterias for unity.
Alexander
I will teach what I believe, And there goes any hope of unity 😉
Alexander,
Are there no questions in the Church of Christ that are “forbidden or brushed aside”? If there are such, does that make us one of the (gasp) “denominations”?
This is a very powerful testimony to Campbell’s anti-sectarian nature as well. Taken from “Our Heritage of Unity and Fellowship” by Ketcherside and Garrett:
****”The year was 1809, the place Glasgow, Scotland. The occasion was the semi-annual communion service of the Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian Church. Eight hundred Scots had gathered for the occasion, a service restricted to that particular sect, which fastidiously excluded even other kinds of Presbyterians. But one of them, a 21-year old student at Glasgow University, lately come from Ireland, was troubled with gnawing doubts about breaking bread in such a sectarian atmosphere.
Having been examined by the elders and found worthy of communion, he had been given a metal token by which he could gain access to the service. Token in hand, he waited for the last of eight or nine tables to be served, hoping he might resolve his doubts in those last moments.
With doubts still plaguing him, he dropped the token in the plate as it came by, but refused to break the bread or drink the cup, realizing as he did then that it was a communion with Christ from which other believers were barred. He turned away and walked out – and life was never again the same for Alexander Campbell.
His biographer and physician, Robert Richardson, wrote of that occasion: “It was at this moment that the struggle in his mind was completed, and the ring of the token, falling upon the plate, announced the instant at which he renounced Presbyterianism forever – the leaden voucher becoming thus a token not of communion but of separation.”****
My thinking is he would probably feel just as out of place in the sectarian Churches of Christ today…
Laymond,
Do you suggest that we teach what we do not believe and instead regurgitate the pablum we have fed on for years – and which has made us weak and sickly, and some have died?
Or is each of us to teach what he understands the Bible to teach, always recognizing that his own understanding may be wrong – while he gives to each brother or sister the right to do the same? And to always treat one another as brothers and sisters in the Lord and to do all things to the glory of God?
Jerry, I was just stating facts, and I believe you just seconded it.
It is way to late for unity. I don’t see much unity in the church since the first century.
That is why I can’t understand people who insist they are spirit led, but most of the spirit led Christians have a different view of what the bible said. all the time insisting the bible was spirit inspired. You don’t see anything wrong with this picture.
If Jerry and Joe both claim to be spirit led, and they both read the same spirit inspired book, how can they disagree on what it said. Does Jerry and Joe have a different spirit leader? or are we all supposed to get our information from a book that remains the same everyday? you tell me.
I suppose there are; but that’s in part due to the fact that the churches of Christ in part became a denomination – inbterestingly they now begin to defin unity as fellowship among denominations, don’t they; instead of dieing to denominationalism.
I can only speak for my church – and hre I am among those who have to dcide how to deal with any question. Having experienced shallow answers to serious questions myself, I go about this accordng to Luk 6:31
BTW I just came back from a stroll through the city where two churches had evangelism on the street. One was a conservative Plymouth Brethren group, the other one was a charismatic church – they were about 500 yards apart from each other. I enjoyed very nice brotherly conversations with both leaders there. I know we are one, even if we differ on varios opinions, and I think they sensed the same in our conversation.
Alexander
Alex,
Your last paragraph was powerfully encouraging and goes to the heart of our problem. As you have said the Church in Europe has experienced a different pattern of struggle and growth than we have here. The group among whom I was raised would look at those two groups and search frantically for any reason at all to condemn them, even if it fell to the only difference being a name.
I am grateful that this is not a part of your experience, I wish it were not a part of mine, but it is and sadly remains reality for a good portion of the American Restoration Movement. (I even have to stuggle against it with some of my independent CoC folks.)
I actually think your attitude is the correct one – Where Christ has clearly spoken, we obey, where He hasn’t we do our best and accept and receive grace. We always look for points of contact – if for no other reason than to be able to teach more fully and accurately what we have received from the Word.
Alexander,
I’m sure you’d agree that repentance and faith in Jesus are more central to the gospel than even baptism. At least, I’m sure you’d agree that they aren’t LESS central than baptism.
And yet we routinely accept an imperfect, incomplete faith. A convert might have very little understanding of what “Messiah” and “Christ” even mean when confessing that “Jesus is the Christ.” They might have at best an infantile understanding of “Son of God,” as well — a phrase that the scholars like to debate but that likely, on Peter’s lips, meant the “son of God” referenced in Psa 2 — that is, the Messiah, the descendant of David who would sit on the throne of Israel. And even if a convert has the understanding of the confession of a scholar, his faith would still be weak! Which of us could cast a mountain into the sea?
And yet we accept a faith that cannot move mountains and that does not fully understand the confession it makes.
Just so, we don’t require a perfect repentance. I mean, a truly perfect repentance would result in a sinless person! We not seen one in nearly 2,000 years.
In both cases, as a matter of common sense and rich understanding of the scriptures, we judge such things based on the intentions of the heart — as best we can. We know a convert will not be completely penitent and will have a less-than-perfect faith, but we can see a genuine desire to be obedient and submissive to God driven by conviction that Jesus really is King of the universe.
But for some reason, when it comes to baptism, we demand perfection. It’s not enough to deeply want to submit to God in every way possible. Worse yet, while we understand that a babe in Christ won’t have perfect understanding of the gospel, we demand of him an understanding of baptism that even Greek scholars dispute over!
It’s a very subtle point of Church of Christ psychology, but we unintentionally impose a higher standard for baptism than faith or repentance because our forefathers taught that baptism is a “positive” command, a test of faith, and only effective if the test if passed.
http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/stone-campbell-hermeneutics-v-moral-and-positive-law/
If we would but think of baptism as no higher than faith in Jesus Christ, we’d realize that the standard is not punctilious adherence to everything the scriptures say on the subject — an impossible test when applied to faith and repentance — but the intent of the heart to submit to Jesus.
Finally, we should adhere to the wisdom of Thomas Campbell, who insisted that we not impose standards of fellowship stricter than can be obeyed by babes in Christ —
“The Declaration and Address”
Summer,
Thanks. We often forget the reason the Restoration Movement was founded was not to insist on a particular view of baptism or worship, but to be united despite disagreements about any doctrine other than faith in Jesus.
I am so brief in words occassionaly I do not understand myself.
I have a respect for the Campbells seeking unity and what to unify in. It is God’s work to seek unity, just read John 15. Scattered out there are the Redeemed and we should rejoice in them.
Alexander’s progression changed his wording of what’s important during his life. He had more complete views on faith and practice later in life. At the Declaration and Address his faith was strong but spent years afterword working on the practice of Christianity. Later writings in Mel. Harb. show concern for the salvation that has God’s power, rather than invented practices. (I apologize for not giving Campbell quotes but the books are not available to me now.)
Unity was a major concern of Jesus, perhaps the best reference is Jn 16:20-21. Unity was not the mission of Jesus but a major concern. Likewise for us.
Larry,
Consider this theory. The mission of the church begins with “love one another.” In the same meeting with his disciples, Jesus taught that love would be the mark of a disciple of his. We start there, and love leads to unity. And unity leads to effective evangelism.
In an unchurched world, division greatly harms the church and its witness to the Living Christ, and thus makes evangelism much harder. Our insistence on division causes many to reject Jesus altogether.
And so I see it all working and fitting together inseparably. We can’t be effective in mission until we first learn to love each other — not just those in our congregations but all of God’s church.
AMEN!
Well said Jay. Besides evangelism is teaching, and how do you know what to teach if you haven/t talked to another about their beliefs? Maybe they understood John’s reptentance and need to know Jesus or heard of Jesus and need to know the Holy Spirit (both in Acts). Teaching in love is not warning of Hell because you are not me, but seeking us both to understand God’s will better.
There can be no “ Christian Unity” unless we believe, teach and practice what Christ authorizes in the New Testament. Any system short of that would be mockery. It is one thing to agree upon the teachings of the Bible; In Ephesians 4:3 we are commanded to keep “ the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace.” There is only one way to acquire unity in the Lord. Imitating the one body (church) where Jesus is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:21-23 “ far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. ) that church that belong to Christ that we read in the Scriptures from the first century (Ephesians 4:4-6) “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;” ( Eph. 4:13) How is possible the unity of the Faith? through knowledge of the Son of God, by the New Testament that is the way we can known Jesus and his teachings and that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— (Under the Authority of Christ). The answer is an open heart toward the Word of God! the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;(Eph.6:6). For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12, Psalm 119:159-161 ).
I suspect Mr. or Mrs. “Guestfortruth” is in “unity” with some people he/she would not be in unity with if he knew what they really thought about some things. That’s the trouble with cookie cutter Christianity … somebody’s dough always sticks to the cutter and messes it up. And anonymous posts are lame, by the way. 🙂
Never lose sight of the fact that the church, meaning the members you know in any location, is not going to judge you but for a short time while you are on this earth. God judges for eternity.
Only God Himself with do the real judging and in so many cases He bends the rules based on the situation and heart that He sees but they can’t.
In most cases, our fellow brothers and sisters judged far more harshly than God..
On the other hand, there are more brothers and sisters judging more like God every day and for that I am thankful.
You will be judged as you judged is a scary statement.