I attended David Lipscomb College (now Lipscomb University) and managed to take a Bible class every day for the entire time and learn nothing about the Restoration Movement. That class was reserved for Bible majors and offered opposite key major courses for all others.
Later on, when I began to teach adult Bible classes at church, I decided to do a study of the Restoration Movement. I was fortunate that my church had excellent resources for Restoration Movement studies, by the standards of the day.
In particular, we had a copy of James deForest Murch’s 1962 Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement
I had always assumed that the Restoration Movement was about baptism and instrumental music — since these are the distinctive doctrines of the Churches of Christ. But the Movement was well underway — for many years — before either of those became issues. The Movement was founded for entirely different reasons.
Part of the reason was a rejection of Calvinism, especially the kind taught in that part of the country at the time (which is unlike the Calvinism of many today). But both Barton W. Stone and the Campbells quickly went past the strictures of Calvinism to develop a vision of a united Christendom. Their goal was nothing less than uniting all of Christianity.
Their native Presbyterian Church, founded in Scotland, was highly creedal, meaning that both Stone and Thomas Campbell were expelled because they considered non-Presbyterians to be saved. In fact, Campbell was an Old-Light Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian, and he dared serve communion to Presbyterians that belonged to different subsets of the church (some of whom hadn’t taken communion in years for lack of a qualified Presbyterian pastor in the western Pennsylvania frontier)! You see, they damned each other over any disagreement at all.
Stone protested by working with other Presbyterian ministers to dissolve the Springfield Presbytery — an association of Presbyterian churches in Illinois. He helped write the famous Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery —
Imprimis. We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one Body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling. …
Item. We will, that preachers and people, cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up, and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh.
The document contains elements both of primitivism (a desire to restore First Century practices) and ecuminism (a desire to unity all Christians despite most differences).
As a result, Stone’s church gave up any denominational affiliation, and his movement spread across Illinois, Ohio, and into Kentucky as other churches followed suit — typically taking the name “Christian Church.”
Stone baptized his converts, but in the Presbyterian style. Baptism by immersion for remission of sins came much later, largely from his studying the teachings of Alexander Campbell. But even after the Christian Churches began to baptize by immersion, they did not re-baptize those previously baptized and they resolutely refused to consider someone damned because of a deficiency in his baptism.
Rather, Stone taught that the ultimate test of salvation is not the quality of one’s baptism but evidence of the possession of the Spirit — that is, a truly transformed life. Because he understood the Spirit as essential to having a “heart of flesh,” as Ezekiel puts it, whether someone is a child of God is generally discernible by looking at the kind of heart they have.
The Campbells developed a much more detailed doctrine designed to produce unity of all Christendom — and over time, Thomas’s son, Alexander became the most prominent and influential leader of the combined groups.
In about 1830, the two movements ran into each other, with the same towns often having a congregation of both the Christian Church, led by Stone, and the Disciples of Christ, led by the Campbells. Many congregations noticed that the two churches believed much the same thing, and being part of two unity movements, efforts were made to merge churches.
Famously, in 1832 a follower of the Campbells, preacher “Raccoon” John Smith (here’s a link to Raccoon John Smith, an excellent fictionalized biography of the man
Moreover, countless other smaller groups of churches joined the Movement. Many a preacher and elder was persuaded by their arguments that division is simply anti-Christian — leading to astonishing growth in part through the absorption of many congregations and associations of congregations of independent churches.
What was the appeal? Well, maybe the best way to explain is through the slogans that helped define the Movement.
“We are Christians only but not the only Christians.”
In short, the Restoration Movement churches were the very opposite of exclusivist or sectarian. They did not see joining the Movement as a step toward salvation but as a step away from the sin of division.
In the contemporary Churches, some leaders have honestly declared themselves at odds with this teaching. In 1992, Thomas Warren published The Bible Only Makes Christians Only & the Only Christians
In short, a substantial element of the modern Churches of Christ has become precisely what the Restoration Movement was founded to combat.
Others within the Churches of Christ claim to believe “not the only Christians,” but would consider as certainly saved only those very few, theoretically existing independent congregations that happen to organize and worship and teach exactly like the conservative Churches of Christ — hence, “not the only Christians but just barely so.”
And a few would make the same claim, but only because they are unwilling to declare others as damned, despite the fact that their doctrine teaches the damnation of all who practice differently from their own Churches. This is much the feeling I get from Gardner Hall’s Conviction Versus Mercy
In faith, unity;
In opinions, liberty; and
In all things, charity [meaning “love”].
This slogan is a variation of a much older slogan —
Unity in necessary things [or essentials];
Liberty in doubtful things [or non-essentials];
Charity in all things
— from Archbishop of Split (Spalato) Marco Antonio de Dominis in 1617.
Hence, the Restoration Movement founders replaced “necessary things” or “essentials” with “faith” — declaring faith in Jesus to be the only essential — and hence all else a matter of “opinion.” Thus, your views on Calvinism or all sorts of other -isms may or may not be true, but if they are not part of faith in Jesus, they are opinions and hence not essential to salvation and fellowship.
Sometimes we use “opinion” to mean “wrong position,” such as when we say, “Well, that’s your opinion!” But the Restoration leaders used “opinion” to mean any doctrinal position other than faith in Jesus, even positions that they strongly disagreed with for what they considered very sound scriptural reasons. Hence, Alexander Campbell opposed Calvinism, but he allowed his father, a Calvinist, to publish articles in his periodicals.
In the 20th Century, this slogan was grossly distorted by many within the Churches of Christ so that “faith” meant “provable from the Bible” and “opinion” meant “not provable from the Bible.” Hence, in a dispute over whether building a fellowship hall is permitted, those who find it permissible hold fellowship halls to be matters of opinion, whereas those who oppose the fellowship hall as lacking scriptural authority consider the issue a matter of “faith.”
In short, “faith” meant “I think the Bible prohibits it” and “opinion” meant “I disagree.” And nearly every 20th Century doctrinal split in the Churches of Christ was over whether an issue was a matter of “faith” or “opinion.” And yet the Campbells and Stone would have considered both sides of every single issue a matter of opinion because there was not a single split over whether Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Faith — as the Bible uses “faith” — was not at issue.
Indeed, in retrospect, it’s astonishing how easily many within the Churches so easily redefined “faith” to mean “a biblical truth” rather than “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus did not promise to build his church on a cappella music. He built it on faith that he is the Messiah.
Thanks Jay. I pray for a return to those goals of the early Restoration Movement. BTW please fix the link to the Racoon Smith fictional biography.
“Jesus did not promise to build his church on a cappella music. He built it on faith that he is the Messiah.”
— great line
Wasn’t there something in the works a few years ago called Communion Sunday or something like that wherein the various CoC churches would try and “mingle” with the other denominations? Seems like it’s all in the attitude…. Don’t see the CoC ever reuniting with anybody… the bridges they’ve burned are pretty dramatic…but I hope I’m wrong.
What must be preserved in the Church of Christ is the passion of preachers and teachers who are now holding up the face and mirror of Christ to the congregation each Sunday. It is not until we get a good look at ourselves along side THE example that we realize what we have been saying and how we have been saying it.
The mercy and compassion of Christ is not an easy message to put before a group of people who have hardened themselves into believing that mercy and compassion are weaknesses that throw the doors open to every “false doctrine” imaginable. And the pride that comes with this hardness is the entire identity of many of these individuals who see giving it up as the total loss of self.
So, to such preachers and teachers, men and women, I tip my hat. You have a difficult job ahead of you. Any growing pains that you may put people through are going to cause some deep anger, anger that justifies hurting the one who inflicts it. But I am sure most of you who are proclaiming the mercy of Christ know this already.
God Bless!!
Thanks Jay…we still have a ways to go…..
The roots of today’s ‘major issues’ is, as you’ve shown, a product of losing focus on the heart of the message of Campbell and Stone and Smith. As far as that goes, this is a fair treatment of more than 150 years of a remarkably resilient and evolving movement … One which is nearing the absolute necessity of having such a eulogy prepared.
One reflection I cannot escape is that, by neither original nor modern standard in the history of this movement is this a history of actually restoring first century Christian practices. It is a history of men and women of God living by faith and relying on grace. In some places along the way, some have allowed grace to fall victim to the extreme departures from Jesus’ life and teachings that have dared to proclaim themselves not only to be Christians, but which have further claimed to be the ONLY ‘true’ Christians. Not even the apostles dared to make such a claim.
One can hope there is a growing determination to lay aside the fatally flawed history of imposing artificial standards of distinctives which fuel disunity. We have seen how NOT to achieve unity … but will we find ways to hear and understand the unity for which Jesus prayed AND a way to achieve that unity? We have not yet shown in our practices a general acceptance that unity is even our goal, much less a central focus. Saying the word does not equal even the slightest intent to pursue it … and barely approaches considering whether or not we want to achieve it.
The work, once begun in earnest so long ago, has nearly died from disillusionment as each generation divides further and further. Perhaps that was inevitable when we exchanged being Christians first and foremost for becoming imitators of His followers instead of being His disciples. I wonder … do we care enough to refocus and reset our sails?
Jay said,
“Indeed, in retrospect, it’s astonishing how easily many within the Churches so easily redefined “faith” to mean “a biblical truth” rather than “Jesus is the Christ”
It’s easy to Monday morning QB and see their folly in doing so, I’m just not sure how you ever decide which direction you go concerning doctrinal matters. Do we immerse or sprinkle? And when we do , what is the purpose? I say sprinkle and you say immerse. I say towards forgiveness, and you say because of forgiveness. Now these differences(and a hundred others) may not in and of themselves mean we have to split up but at the very least just saying “these things aren’t knowable” doesn’t seem to be the correct answer. Choices have to be made, and in the process there is going to be a lot of disagreement.
IMO people want concrete answers, right or wrong, left or right, up or down, not I believe this and you believe that, so let’s just all get along. It’s just easier to operate that way in a church or in a business, or in a family(I think that’s what happened in the restoration movement over time).
I, like you, have told my Bible class on a few occasions “I don’t know.” They never seemed to accept that answer and honesty. They’ve been taught God wants us to know HIs word and to be able to discern it “rightly.” It’s human nature to want definitive answers. People who take a hard stance and have quick pat answers seem to be more followable(even if wrong) it would seem. Like the heroes in the disaster movies who say, “follow me, I’ll get us out of here”, verses the guy who says,” I don’t know which way to go and is indecisive.’ Who wants to follow that guy?
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Can anyone here present, tell me which New covenant church this describes. Tell me where this New Covenant is included in the church Paul plans as the New Testament church.
I could be wrong but I understand Jesus founded his church on our belief that He/Jesus is the son of God , and that we believe it strongly enough to rely on what he said was truly the word of God, and follow the instruction given by that word. I don’t see where we are expected to be clones in order to be considered Jesus’ disciple, I believe if we are to be measured against Peter, and Paul, we all have a good chance. We, as in those who comment here, yes Charles you too. 🙂
Thanks Jay for an intelligent and objective review, sourced from a very interesting and valuable resource, which I think helps to begin to put things in a better perspective in terms of the evolution of the movement and the Church.
For far too long, leaders of the Churches of Christ that I am most familiar with often took positions on all sorts of things which placed seemingly trivial matters almost equal to or even above essential matters of faith and salvation. Not infrequently, such seemingly trivial matters became yardsticks to measure the member against, and were used to reveal the leadership’s summary judgement on the relative value of that member to the congregation at large and to that member’s state of salvation. All of which became the general substance of policy discussion among members of a congregation.
Occasionally, those rendering such judgements were in a weaker position themselves. For one minor example, in the southern states, while teaching or pronouncing that smoking is a sin, such leaders were themselves purveyors of the base product as tobacco farmers. Thus, they were essentially saying “do not do as I do, do only as I say”. There are many other such examples where seemingly trivial matters were decided by persons who themselves were not up to speed.
In essence it seems to me that many of us over the past 50 or so years have strayed far way from the essentials of salvation, which in my opinion often begin with academic discussion of the microdots of doctrine (eg, legalisms – much in the same way as used by the Pharisees). A larger big picture view is probably better suited to effective Christianity.
Alan,
I have fixed the link. Thanks for letting me know.
Monty points out the resistance to the idea of doubt. That is partly because we have been taught that error damns. If you don’t know for sure, you might do the wrong thing. Then, God will destroy you. A terrifying doctrine to try to live by. I am reminded of Jesus telling certain people he did not know them, even as they told him just how busy they were doing all the right things. Faith does produce works. But in lieu of this, we can always flail away in desperation, hoping that frenetic activity for God will somehow produce faith. Or at least get us enough extra credit to bring our failing grade up to 70, so we can pass the entrance exam to heaven.
And thanks so much, Jay, for bringing it all down to the simplicity of “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. In questions of spiritual identity, it really does all boil down to Jesus’ question, “But who do YOU say that I am?”
Great post Jay Thank you and I’m sending it to many folks.
I’m curious, what denomination today teaches this Jesus first as we would like the churches of Christ to do?
Thought this might apply to the topic at hand, I was looking at an old House to House/Heart to Heart on my desk and saw this article titled: Three Things You Will Not Hear on the Day of Judgment by Roger Campbell. HIs last point of three is interesting as he writes, “On the day of judgment, no one will say, “I regret that I did my best to follow Jesus faithfully.” Friends the crown of life is for the faithful-period! (Revelation 2:10). It is the good and faithful who will hear on that day, “Well done…enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Matthew 25:23). Regret such a reward? Never! Every service attended, every prayer offered, every minute spent in Bible study, every visit made, every mile walked for the Cause-all of this and more will make us think, as the hymn says, ‘ Heaven will surely be worth it all.” May we all give diligence to make our calling and election sure(2 Peter 1:10-11).
It is the last sentence that IMO speaks to the topic at hand. He uses this admonition about growing in the fruit of the Spirit out of context here. He makes it to say, of works, the more you do, the harder you work at it, the better off you’ll be when it comes time for the judgment. To me he is saying, “Being a Christian is hard work, it takes much effort, but rest assure, the effort will pay off.”
Should a Christian work hard for his Master? Of course, but out of love and devotion for what the Master has done, not out of the thought that my works add to anything the Master did for me. This attitude is prevalent obviously.
Jay concludes,
But they believed the apostles understood truth and taught truth and chose to follow apostolic teachings to the best of their ability. We should do as they did!
What Jesus plainly taught should not be in dispute among us. Jesus COMMANDS that every new believer is to be baptized. Why would anyone with faith in JESUS dare conclude that baptism is optional? The facts are clear that the baptism commanded by Jesus is to be performed by human hands just as the message is to be delivered by human voices and teaching (which is often in print or on the internet nowadays).
We each do well to learn from study of apostolic writings what Jesus taught and wants us to believe and practice. And Jay Guin speaks for Jesus in calling us back to original documents of “the movement.” The apostles wanted us to be “one body.” Every separated group in our movement is a repudiation of what Jesus and His apostles taught about UNITY. Our unity must be based on more than “faith in Jesus as the Christ.” It MUST be based on the body of teaching by Jesus and by the apostles empowered by Him through His SPIRIT and led into “all truth.”
Unity is based on faith in Jesus, Jay suggests. But our faith must be not only in who Jesus was and is, but also on what Jesus taught and had His apostles teach concerning the Way. Where we have lost the way is in making our OPINIONS equal to apostolic teaching. But “salvation by faith alone” is no cure for what ails the movement. It’s only an added split, just one more division in the body. I observe that Rick Atchley’s congregation and teaching points the way to unity of all who sincerely love Jesus and seek to serve Him in unity.
But Jay is wrong to say that “faith in Jesus” is the only essential to be “in Christ.” Galatians 3:27 states clearly that the baptism which is commanded by Jesus brings sinners INTO CHRIST. This message is equally clear in Acts 2:38 and in many passages. It’s obvious that NEW BIRTH is more than just changing your mind and now believing that Jesus is the Lord. Jesus says it takes two elements. Faith in Jesus as Lord is one of those elements. If Jesus is Lord, then we should obey Him rather than ignoring what He calls for us to do.
I found another great resource to be Louis Cochran and Leroy Garrett. Both presented Restoration History in a very enjoyable and readable way.
AJ,
Many denominations (defined in the standard English sense) teach similarly.
Most churches with a Calvinist background certainly do, except for hyper-Calvinists who require a saving experience beyond faith.
Anglicans and Lutherans would generally agree although some conservative congregations would insist on baptism by someone ordained under apostolic succession.
Many Christian Churches would a agree.
And many other denominations born in America’s Second Great Awakening.
Jay, thanks for answering.
I’ve never visited any of those you mentioned but will if I can talk my bride into it. Maybe a Christian, just to see for myself. The COC we attend now (Crossbridge) is considered the very liberalist in Central/North Alabama. Grace is taught here often.