(i) By "the Restoration Movement" we refer, of course, to the attempt to build churches after the New Testament pattern, which expresses itself today through the people known generally as churches of Christ. We should notice further that, as the expression itself indicates, the idea of restoration of the New Testament order was uppermost in the minds of those who first led in this movement.

      True, they were grieved by the extreme divisiveness of the day in which they lived, and they longed for one-ness among the followers of the Lord Jesus. Yet it was not merely a union of churches for which they pleaded--far from that. It was not even a union of believers as such, which they preached, otherwise they might have established merely "union churches" such as exist in various places today.

      But it was the restoration of the New Testament Church in its essential features for which they pleaded, and they sought to establish congregations patterned on New Testament lines, in which and by which the Lord's people might unite. It was not merely a union movement but it was a restoration movement.

      We may express it thus; suppose they had been asked: "There is some uncertainty as to whether people will unite on the basis of a restoration of the New Testament Church; will you still seek restoration even without unity?" They would have replied, "Yes". Yes, restoration even if unity does not come thereby. But had they been asked: "Will you have unity without restoration?" they would have responded with an emphatic "No". In other words, if either unity or restoration had to take precedence over the other, it must be restoration. That old Australian publication, "That they all may be One" (and note the title) yet says, "Stone . . . and his associates announced . . . that they took from that day forward and forever 'the Bible alone as a rule of faith and practice . . . and the name Christian (p. 4 ff.). Further: "Quite independently of each other, Barton W. Stone and the Campbells started in the United States practically the same propaganda and eventually joined forces, with the one great end in view, namely, the advocacy of the plea for a return to primitive Christianity in faith and practice" (p.5).

      The spectacle of the disunity of the day may have been the force which generated the movement but, when that movement came into being, it was essentially a movement for restoration of the New Testament Church, and not merely for union. Isaac Errett wrote: "It cannot be Christian Union unless it is union in Christ--in that which Christ enjoins, neither less nor more. We do not propose the union of sects but call on all the people of God in the various sects to come out from them and unite in the faith and practice taught in the New Testament."

      (ii) Then the term "developments". This word is sufficiently general to cover developments which are good and some which, perhaps, are not good. We speak of developments along the line of doctrine, distinctiveness and devotion.

Doctrine

      1. There have been interesting and important doctrinal developments in the Movement. That is not surprising, for similar processes take place in other religious movements. At first there is a grand zeal and great enthusiasm for the cause which enables the early protagonists of a movement to face adversity and even suffering with joy, and which usually wins the new cause much support and acceptance. We see that in the early history of the Salvation Army, the Wesleyan Movement, the Protestant Reformation, indeed, in Christianity itself.

      Next comes consolidation; the new cause is now firmly established, the first rush of enthusiastic propagation of its doctrines is over, the movement tends to settle down to count its successes and consolidates its gains. Then comes the third period in which, often, the very principles which called the new movement into existence are forgotten, overlooked or even denied. Sacrificial propagation, a sometimes worldly-wise consolidation, then a deplorable abandonment of its very principles are the three stages in the development of many movements. Are we surprised if, in churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement, we can discern this process?

      2. Though generalisations are likely to be faulty, sometimes only thus can we express ourselves. We say then, that we first moved from the earliest position, in which we pleaded for restoration of the New Testament faith and practice, to a somewhat restricted position which sometimes involved a preaching rather of ourselves as a restored New Testament Church, and Christian Baptism in its three aspects of subject, action and importance.

      And from that, perhaps partly as a natural reaction, we seem to be moving to a liberal attitude in which we are in danger of departing from the very principles which originally made us a people and which are essential, indeed even to New Testament Christianity itself. Our treatment of the doctrine of Christian Baptism furnishes us with an illustration--only an illustration--of that:

      (i) As the movement began to take form, the question of baptism emerged. It was not until three years after the reading of the "Declaration and Address" (September 7th, 1809), that Thomas Campbell was baptised, on 12th June, 1812; such a small part did baptism have in the original determination to return to the New Testament alone as the authority in faith, practice and life, But, quite properly, when that decision was made, a return to New Testament baptism took place.

      (ii) it may fairly be stated that we then entered a period when a strong emphasis was placed on the subject of baptism. Let us be fair in our judgment. Remember that sometimes the opposition of others forces a people into an emphasis which they would not necessarily make were it not for that opposition.

      Allow, too, that our proclamation of New Testament truth about baptism was made with great ability from the point of view of both scholarship and scripture. Yet it is unfortunate (wherever the blame may lie and whatever the reason) that the Lord's ordinance tended to take the place of the Lord Himself in the interest of some who heard and accepted the message. And (whether rightly or wrongly) we earned a reputation among others as a people whose message and position centred on baptism rather than on Christ.

      Moreover, we were supposed by some to preach that doctrine which is rightly repugnant to all true Protestants--the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We are not attempting to indicate where the blame lies, but simply and dispassionately stating what the situation has been.

      (iii) But, partly at least, we seem to have moved out of that situation today though, in doing so, in some cases, we have moved right away from the New Testament itself. In some places we have followed the practice of instituting infant dedication services. In the U.S.A., some churches of Christ now practice "open membership", this being the case, also, with some churches on our American mission fields. This is certainly a long way from the original stand taken by us as a people.

      3. Let us digress to ask ourselves whether we have handled the subject of the place of baptism as we should have done. That we are right in emphasising the truth of immersion as against sprinkling and pouring, and that of the baptism of penitent believers as against infant "baptism", goes without saying. It seems positive, too, that the Word of God teaches a connection between our obedience to this command of the Lord, and His gift of the remission of sins; that is the most obvious sense of Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:21. Yet some considerations force themselves on our attention.

      (i) One is the fact that some people who, presumably, cannot accept our position regarding baptism, yet display such a deep love for the Lord and manifest so wonderfully His power and presence in their lives. They appear to have victory over sin and to be "more than conquerors" through Him, in a way of which many of us, apparently, have never heard.

      (ii) Conversely, do not some of us seem to think so much of "our position" that our lives and preaching appear to revolve around that rather than around Christ Jesus as Saviour and Friend? In so speaking we may be earning the censure of the Scriptures: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" and we pray to be forgiven if that is so. Yet Paul said: "We preach Christ and Him crucified". Have we preached "our position" (especially baptism) and overlooked some matters for which the hearts of people are hungry?

      (iii) Is it possible that a rapprochement, a place of understanding and agreement, between ourselves and other immersionists could be found if they would recognise the simple and obvious sense and meaning of the passages referred to above, and if we, on our part, were to emphasise that it is not the mere physical action of baptism which we believe to be associated with the fact of salvation but its significance of spiritual death, burial and resurrection with Christ? It may be said we have always done this, yet the fact remains (whatever the reason) that we are misunderstood by many to teach baptismal regeneration.

      4. In common with the rest of the religious world, we have been confronted with different attitudes regarding the Bible. Of the leaders of the Movement and their attitude towards the Scriptures, two things must be said:

      (i) They took a sane view of the authority of the Bible. They looked on it as a reasonable and sensible record of truth. As a result, they "rightly divided" the Word of Truth.

      (ii) They did believe in the absolute reliability of the Scripture record. While they did not overlook the truth that the Holy Spirit used human pen-men with their differing characteristics and personal qualities. They taught that they were so safeguarded from error that their record was infallibly true.

      Alex. Campbell wrote ("Christian Baptism", p. 27): "Revelation and inspiration, properly so called, have to do only with such subjects as are supernatural, or beyond the reach of human intellect, in its most cultivated and elevated state. In this sense, 'holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit'. But besides this inspiration of original and supernatural ideas, there was another species of supernatural aid afforded the saints who wrote the historical parts of the sacred scriptures. There was a revival in their minds of what they themselves had seen and heard; and in reference to traditions handed down such a superintendency of the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge as excluded the possibility of mistake in the matters of fact which they recorded".

      Indeed, Campbell uses the very word "infallible" when, writing of the apostles (same page), he says they were able "without the possibility of error, to open to mankind the whole will of their Master, whether in the form of fact, precept, promise or threatening; and as furnished with such a knowledge of the signs of those ideas in human language as to express this knowledge clearly, accurately and infallibly to mankind". Campbell believed in the infallibility of the Bible.

      Much has happened in the religious world, especially in relation to the Bible, since then. The theory of evolution shook the faith of many in the infallibility of the Book. German destructive criticism, merging into blatant Modernism, carried others away, The old rationalistic Modernism had its day but was soon largely discredited, More recent Liberalism and schools of thought such as Barthianism threw their weight against the doctrine of Biblical infallibility. All these features have affected the Movement to which we belong, and some of our people have moved very far from Campbell's position on the Bible. Hence F. E, Davidson, a past President of the International Convention of Disciples, says that the Bible is the record of man's upreach and outreach to God which, of course, is the direct opposite of what the Bible says of itself.

      "Disciples" literature in the U.S.A., prepared for Bible Schools, has contained similar teaching. W. B. Denney's book, "The Career and Significance of Jesus", was widely recommended as a help for teachers of young people in our Bible Schools. Here are some extracts:

      "One point is that we cannot take it for granted that the story is true just because it is in the Bible. To say that would make the Bible itself a miracle and then that miracle would have to be proved before we could reasonably accept it. But the view that the Bible is a miraculously perfect Book cannot be proved and, in the judgment of all

trained minds, has been definitely disproved. The writers of the Bible could, and did, sometimes forget facts, and mistake their own fancies for facts, or err in their judgment, or exaggerate because of their very earnestness . . . When they were amazed at the greatness of Jesus, when they wanted to express their boundless admiration and reverence for Him, the most natural way for them to do so was to exaggerate (unconsciously, of course) His simple and natural deeds into wonderful and supernatural tales".

      Again: "The method (of harmonizing the gospels) is based on the assumption that the gospels contain nothing but reliable history. Today we know that this assumption is not true". Mark's gospel is said to "go considerably beyond what Jesus actually believed and taught about Himself." Again: "The early Christians 'were not critical' toward their tradition. They were quite apt to make no clear distinction between what Jesus said or did and what they thought He ought to have said or done . . . The careful biographer must be on his guard at this point and must learn to sift the true history from the imaginary history of the Gospels"! (Christian Standard, Sept. 4th, 1948.)

      The point is that this book is recommended as a study book, and quotations are taken from it, for "Disciples" Bible Schools.

      5. This attitude toward the Bible, has brought a corresponding vagueness and weakness regarding other basic doctrines. This is seen in various directions. For example, in Chicago University is a Divinity School in which "Disciples" cooperate with other groups, including Unitarians! (Christian Standard, Oct. 2nd, 1945). If there is danger in having a too stringent and clearly defined doctrinal position, it is no less dangerous to allow laxity or divergence in doctrine, Having little or nothing to stand for, a church will rapidly decline so that it becomes a mere shadow of its former self. Let us take care lest we fall into such a situation!

Distinctiveness

      1. Under this heading, we wish to raise the question of those developments which have tended toward the transformation of the Movement into a denomination. The last thing the early leaders had in mind was the establishment of another denomination; there is no need to labour that point; the very genius of the Movement is the direct opposite of denominationalism. The aim was to get back behind the denominations to the New Testament church. To what extent have we succeeded or failed in this aim?

      2. With that question we may consider this: Was it too much to expect a people to achieve such an aim as this? And how could such an aim be best achieved? Should we have remained in the denominations simply as a Movement (in something in the nature of, say, the Christian Endeavour movement) or formed a separate body as we have done? In the former instance we would have run the risk of having the witness submerged by denominational associations. In the second case, we had to take the risk of becoming organised into a denomination, even while professing to stand against denominationalism. Our history as a people shows we. chose the second course, or it was forced upon us, and we became a distinct people in the religious set-up of the day.

      3. That being so, we ask: Have we maintained our witness against denominationalism without ourselves becoming a denomination? Because one cannot speak for another in this regard, perhaps that question cannot be answered with a definite "Yes" or "No."

      Nevertheless:

      (i) We are considered by the secular authorities to be merely a denomination. We were required to choose a name by which we might be recognised by the authorities; we chose "churches of Christ" (rather than, say, "Christians" or "churches of God", though both are scriptural names) and we have been known as such since that time. Some of our older buildings still show the title "Christian Chapel", but scarcely anyone would identify us by that today. Whenever one of our ministers prepares a marriage certificate he tacitly accepts the view of the authorities that we are a denomination by writing "churches of Christ" in the space marked "Denomination".

      (ii) Next, our religious neighbours, even though well-disposed toward us, think of us as a denomination. A Salvation Army officer, whom the writer knew, said he considered the aim of churches of Christ to be ideal but beyond what was practical. Even those who admire our position think we have fallen short of our intention, and that we have formed yet another denomination.

      (iii) Then, many of "our own" members look on the Movement as a denomination. We are not necessarily referring to those who come into membership while largely ignorant of the aims of the Movement, but to some even better informed. For example, We profess to be willing to accept any Scriptural name as well as that we officially bear "churches of Christ". But how many members think of "our" congregations as "churches of God"? 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4. yet this designation, in singular and plural forms, is used many times in the New Testament as against only one reference to "churches of Christ", Rom. 16:16.

      (iv) Then it must be acknowledged that, more and more, we are setting up all the machinery of denominationalism. In theory, we have always stood on the ground that the highest and final authority in New Testament churches--speaking humanly of course--was the local congregation. C. J. Sharp (quoted in "Independence of the Local Church", Tulga, p. 7) wrote, "One who peruses the New Testament will search in vain for any hint of an organisation other than applying in a local church".

      Gaines S. Dobbin: p. 6 f., "The first Christian churches have been described as 'little islands of democracy entirely surrounded by autocracy'. We see the first Christians . . . electing their own leaders, making their own rules and regulations, and managing their own affairs without the slightest dictation from an overhead authority".

      Jesus taught, in Matt. 18:15-17, the final authority of the local church. The letters to the seven churches of Asia, in Rev. 2 and 3, indicate that the Lord held each church responsible for its own conduct. Ordination was by the local church, if Acts 13:1-3 bears on this subject. If the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 be considered to teach a wider authority than that of the local church, it must be remembered that here a local church in Antioch sent, when in doubt over a matter, to learn the will of the Christ-appointed apostles.

      We have no such Spirit-inspired men in the church today and, in a parallel case, the local church would need to apply to the inspired written Word, not to a State or Federal or even International Conference. Mosheim, the Church historian, says of the independence of the New Testament churches: "In those primitive times each Christian church was composed of the people, the presiding officers, and the assistants or deacons. The principal voice was that of the people or the whole body of Christians . . . during a great part of this century (the second century) all the churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other. Each church was a kind of small independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned, by the people". (Ecc. Hist.)

      Now, if that be a true testimony, we have moved far toward denominationalism.

      (i) Can it honestly be maintained that we have the New Testament officers and organisational set-up? Can we find a ministerial class in New Testament churches such as we have today? Have we generally, in even those churches which would claim to be fully constituted, an active, ruling, ministering eldership, or presbytery or bishopric such as was to be found in New Testament churches? (As indicated by, say, Acts 14:23; 20:17-35; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; Heb, 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 5:1-4.)

      While other passages seem to make clear that, in New Testament congregations, a special diaconate existed--a group of officials known as "deacons"--what justification is there for "officers" such as we have controlling the churches' affairs? Were not deacons servants in the New Testament churches?--but we have given them control of the church! Deacons should be servants of the church, but we have given them control of the church. (I hasten to make my apology in advance to all "officers" whose sacrifice and unremunerated service help to maintain the churches week by week, and whose faithful labours are not forgotten by the Head of the Church.) We dislike the title "Reverend" for our ministers--though we do not now protest so much when, for example, it appears in telephone books and newspaper articles! Feeling that they need some designation, our preachers sometimes allow themselves to be called "Pastors", though we know quite well that the "Pastors" of the New Testament churches were the elders or presbyters or bishops! In view of these considerations, can we claim that we have maintained the New Testament organisational set-up for the local church? If not, have we not then instituted a denominational one?

      (ii) Secondly, have we not instituted a denominational set-up in our various conferences, State or otherwise? It is true that New Testament churches, though independent, yet co-operated for the glory of Jesus' name as, for example, in the "great collection" which Paul took among the Gentile congregations for the poor saints in Jerusalem. But we have moved further than that.

      Rightly or wrongly, advantageously or otherwise, we have become denominational when local churches no longer possess their own properties, surrender the responsibility of the call of the "Minister" to a central committee, and are expected to support the conference programme simply because it is a programme of conference.

      Our development has been definitely towards denominationalism even though we dislike the expression and, in deference to our forefathers and our historic position, still call ourselves not a denomination but a "Brotherhood". Today, in effect, it means much the same!

Devotion

      We refer, briefly, to two things:

      1. First, the fact that, as a people, we have produced, in later years, but little of an expository nature, little of a devotional nature, little dealing with the grand subject of living the Christian life. We have written much in controversy and have thoroughly explored such subjects as the church, the plan of Salvation, the Ordinances, etc. All this has been good. But have we been as ready and as able to expound the Scripture itself? Or to teach people how to live joyfully and victoriously the Christian life, or even how to love Jesus Christ our Master? Why is it that for years we do not seem to have produced great Bible students and expositors and devotional writers?

      We did produce able scholars such as Joseph Bryant Rotherham and others; how have we lost our ability and our genius in this regard? Again, at certain interdenominational conventions many people, including members of churches of Christ, are learning to live joyfully and victoriously the life in Christ. They have learned that our Saviour can and does break the power of cancelled sin and set the prisoner free.

      And so often it seems that, while we have been teaching people doctrines--and a select group of doctrines at that--others who know little about the doctrines we emphasise, have yet learned to experience Christ, to enjoy a moment-by-moment fellowship with Him, and to find the power of the Holy Spirit freeing them day by day from the misery of failure and sin. Is it any wonder that such folk are not greatly impressed by "our plea", when they find us so right about baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and the name of the church, and the plea for unity, and other pet subjects, and so often far from right with regard to other tremendously weighty matters, such as prayer, victory, joy, peace, sanctification, unworldliness, consecration and truth?

      We quote from an article in the "Australian Christian" (3rd Nov. 1953); is not the following true? "We are known for our love of the New Testament, but are not known by our New Testament love. We have been strong to stress 'the New Testament plan of salvation' but weak to neglect the New Testament graces of love, forgiveness, kindness, meekness and other fruits of the Holy Spirit. We have stressed 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' without being possessed enough by the Holy Spirit to be blessed by (His) holy fruit. We pride ourselves as 'the New Testament Church' but have produced generations who know as little of the New Testament as their Protestant and Roman neighbours . . . We would preach a full gospel from the whole Bible in the light of Christ. But we have tended to stress certain parts of Acts, and other favourite few verses, neglecting weightier matters of 'Judgment, Mercy and Faith'. We have been stronger to tell others how to become like us than to show them how to become disciples of Christ. We have been more concerned to restore a New Testament blueprint for all churches than to extend Christ's saving imprint among the lives of all men and society".

      2. The second matter under this heading relates to the above. Here is the report of a mission conducted by a "clergyman" for a denominational church. The church made months of preparation, completely covering the district from door to door with a personal invitation to every household. A half night of prayer was held. The campaign lasted fourteen days and there were "35 first decisions! 9 confessions (?), and 73 restorations and dedications;" 117 people in all passing through the enquiry room and being met personally by the evangelist,

      Apart from other results, 35 first decisions in a short mission of fourteen days is a very happy result. The point is, we are not the only people with evangelistic fervour: others, too are winning men and women. Have we not fallen into an easy attitude in which we think that all we need to do is to engage a visiting preacher--for preference someone who seems to have the happy knack of getting people to "make their confession" and "join the church" and that is all there is to it?

      Is it possible that, for all our professed evangelistic zeal and experience, we have too often preached a position instead of the blessed Person of Jesus Christ as the only Saviour; we have led people to agree to be obedient in baptism rather than, in general, leading lost sinners to the dear Saviour? Is it true that, after all, we ought to sit at the feet of others and learn again what true evangelism is and how it should be performed? May He give us grace and humility so to do,--if indeed this is necessary!

      A concluding thought. As a people, churches of Christ once echoed the words of the Master: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". Today, alas, we often seem to reflect Pilate's pessimism, "What is truth?" So much is being said about tolerance and love that truth seems to suffer by contrast. Only let us remember that there is in the sacred Scriptures the truth. And we may pray in the words of the Anglican Bishop, J. C. Ryle: