The restoration was the result of the Second Great Awakening, which was a partial spin-off from the French Revolution, among other historical events. It would require too much time and space to document this, and I will forego the pleasure of doing so. It began primarily with sober and serious Presbyterians with an occasional assist from some Methodists and Baptists, and it began as "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects," as Alexander Campbell referred to it in 1835.
Actually, it was not "the restoration movement" at all, as if it were the only one. It was a restoration movement. It was but one of about sixteen such movements which were launched in those heady days. It was a cultural something, which seemed called for by the times. Some of the movements merged into contemporary sects, but a great many of them died with their emigrant founders. The term "restoration movement" was hardly used by our fathers. They spoke of it as "the current reformation."
This served to distinguish it from the Protestant Reformation which Campbell declared "is proved to have been one of the most splendid eras in the history of the world, and must long be regarded by the philosopher and the philanthropist as one of the most gracious interpositions in behalf of the whole human race."
He continued "We Americans owe our national privileges and our civil liberties to the Protestant Reformers. They achieved not only an imperishable name for themselves, but a rich legacy for their posterity. When we contrast the present state of the United States with Spanish America, and the condition of the English nation with that of Spain, Portugal and Italy, we begin to appreciate how much we are indebted to the intelligence, faith and courage of Martin Luther and his heroic associates in that glorious reformation."
These men were not unaware of the difference in setting and its effect upon their ideals and purposes. The great contrast with Rome and its political intrigues, its rich hierarchy and its mendicant suppliants, its art forms and statuary, its political structures and pompous liturgy, with the American frontier was everywhere manifest. Too, the stolid German character, demonstrated by both the nobility and peasantry was a far cry from the reckless American who was ever restless and ready to challenge the wilderness.
Thomas Campbell relied upon the freedom and liberty of the new world to spread the good news of a united Church. "Dearly beloved brethren, why should we think it a thing incredible that the Church of Christ, in this highly favored country, should resume that original unity, peace and purity which belong to its constitution, and constitute its glory?" Again, "The favorable opportunity which Divine Providence has put into your hands, in this happy country, for the accomplishment of so great a good, is, in itself, a consideration of no small encouragement."
As a frontier movement among all of the churches some success was recorded. There was an appeal to the simple and unsophisticated mind in the idea that one could be a Christian and a Christian only. It began to appear that sectarianism might be swept from the map in the Western Reserve and in the Missouri Territory where it was not as entrenched as it was in New England. Most of the labor was done and most of the gains were registered in the new settlements farther to the west. As Thomas Campbell had said, "The cause that we advocate is not our own peculiar cause, nor the cause of any party, considered as such; it is a common cause, the cause of Christ and our brethren of all denominations."
But it was not to continue so. There were a great many obstacles to the achievement of the noble purpose. The very independence which gave it birth seemed to work against its continuance. Men were free enough to begin to unite across the various lines but not free enough to continue to do so. They had not caught the vision of their leaders. They had not dreamed their dreams. Some of them were willing to unite provided their party could be the prominent one. Others were caught up in the developing cults of Mormonism and the Shakers.
Then too, the power of the sectarian spirit was not properly evaluated. Attacks began to be made by the clergy whose creeds had been assailed. The reformers were accused of plotting the overthrow of the Christian faith. Campbell was branded a traitor and a heretic. He was bitterly assaulted in journals and periodicals. His followers were called Campbellites and it was pronounced with a smirk and a sneer. As time went on there were mistakes made. Some of them were grievous. They resulted in the inception of another denomination. It proliferated into a number of different parties. Today these have lost their original goal of the unity of all believers. Yet it appears that there is the beginning of a re-evaluation.
This first little trickle which betokens the melting of the glacier of indifference and unconcern is precious. It betokens the first warming rays of the sun of righteousness have been effective. Whether it can continue to flow until it becomes a mighty river or will be stifled by the deep freeze of partisan coldness is a question. It is the first indication of a breach with the sectarian attitude. In many cases it began with those who had been more exclusive and bitter than their fellows, as it did in the beginning with Campbell and Stone. This is good because such men have tasted the dregs of the spirit of intolerance and rejected the draught. They will not easily return to it.
I would like to detail three of the many mistakes
we have made as a people. In doing so I lay myself open to attack and make
myself vulnerable. It seems to me that someone must speak about these matters
and I dare not ask another to do what I am unwilling to do for myself. Those
who read will probably understand my concern, those who do not will continue
to warn against me as if they were thoroughly familiar with what I had
said.
Our gravest error was in allowing the restoration movement to become, in our minds, the church. Nay, even worse and more insulting to the divine intelligence, we made it "the Lord's church," with bold effrontery designating it the "Church of Christ." This immediately changed our aim and goal. We ceased to be a movement and became a monument. A monument marks the accomplishments of the past. People go to it to pay homage to their heroes. We honor the memory of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Warren Stone and Walter Scott. But where are their successors today? Who is carrying on the work they begun?
Movements are human in origin, but the church is divine. The church did not need to be restored. It had never died. It is impossible for a body to die while its head lives. Movements come and go. They rise and wane. They ebb and flow. But the body goes on forever. When we transmuted the movement into a church we embalmed it. It became rigid and immobile. It must now contend with other "churches" for a place in the sun. The very moment we became a church we automatically inherited rivals, many of them more hoary in age and more respectable than ourselves.
This meant that what Thomas Campbell referred to as "our dear brethren of all denominations" were no longer our brethren. He declared, "You are all, dear brethren, equally included as the objects of our love and esteem." When we became a church we slammed the door upon them. We became exclusivists of the worst kind. All of our "dear brethren" were now with us. Those who were not with us were not our brethren. The body of Christ now met at a certain location in a certain building, and its chief purpose became to attack all who were not in that location and in that building.
Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Rice, alleged that "We have neither national, provincial or sectarian church. We have many churches but no church. Nor do we desire a church, in that sense of the word." We have now created a sectarian church. It has other grounds for fellowship than the supreme truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It has other tests of union and communion than the foundation which God has laid. Its devotees have renounced the restoration movement, departed from the one faith, and ceased to be a force for unity. Their hand is against every man who does not conform to them, and every man's hand is against them.
What steps can be taken to remedy the situation. One simple one is to take down the sign "Church of Christ." The New Testament church has no title or name. It is simply the body of Christ, identified by its location. It is a fellowship of the ransomed ones, a community of the saved. The Church of Christ is universally recognized as another sect. It is regarded as in the same category with the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, or the Presbyterian Church. The idea that it is a haven of rest for every child of God has long been lost. It is now judged by its particularities and peculiarities, and not by its universalities. It is no longer a meetingplace for Christians, but for a certain kind of Christians, subscribing to certain things.
The Church of Christ as it exists today can never
unite the Christians in all of the sects. It has forfeited its right to be
recognized as the restoration movement. It has lost its aim, forgotten its
goal, and has settled down to becoming one of the churches in the community.
Yet it could become a rallying-ground for the needy, the seeking, the harassed
and driven people of our day. It could do this without giving up a single
truth it has ever held. Is it not a logical thing to do or can we afford
the price of a lost world, as the cost for our attitude.
TESTS OF BROTHERHOOD
By the very act of proclaiming a movement the church, we created of ourselves a sect. We shut ourselves off from the saved of God who met under another name and sought to praise Him in other places. Many of these were as righteous as ourselves, conscientiously following in all the things of the Word as they saw them. They were caught up in the sectarian web, but were not sectarian.
Our second great error occurred in 1889. It happened at Sand Creek, in Illinois. The aging brick building still stands. It is empty now. The pews are there. But no one has occupied them for years. Wasps and mud-daubers flit about the interior. Squirrels play in the cemetery outside. Sand Creek was the place where the Address and Declaration was read by Daniel Sommer. It was a reverse of the "Declaration and Address" read just eighty years before by Thomas Campbell at Washington, Pennsylvania.
The Sand Creek Declaration mentioned that "Some of the things of which we hereby complain, and against which we protest, are the unlawful methods resorted to in order to raise or get money for religious purposes, namely, that of the church holding festivals of various kinds, in the house of the Lord or elsewhere, demanding sometimes that each shall pay a certain sum as an admittance fee; the select choir to the virtual, if not the real, abandonment of congregational singing; likewise the man-made society for missionary work, and the one-man imported preacher-pastor to take the oversight of the church."
Loaded language was used in referring to these matters. They were called "Unpleasant, and as we see them vicious things." They were labeled objectionable and unauthorized. Those who endorsed them were called innovators. In conclusion it was said, "We state that we are impelled from a sense of duty to say, that all such that are guilty of teaching, or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, that after being admonished, and having had sufficient time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we cannot and will not regard them as brethren."
The document was signed by representatives of five Illinois congregations. It was approved by David Lipscomb of the Nashville, Tennessee congregation. It proved to be a Pandora's Box of evils turned loose upon the land. It resulted in divisions, law-suits, claims and counter-claims, which turned the sword of the Spirit against brethren and spilled their fratricidal gore all over the landscape. For generations it perpetuated civil war, hatred and hostility which made of the movement the most bitterly fought and contested territory on the American scene.
It represented the first attempt to "not regard as brethren" those who differed in matters of interpretation and implementation. The few things increased into many. Legalism supplanted love. Motivated by the idea that there was a specific pattern, with all disagreeing as to what it was, the principle of the Sand Creek document became the basis of Church of Christism with its withdrawal of fellowship. Cheap orthodoxy becomes the order of the day and honest dissent paid the penalty.
The first great mistake was disfellowshipping the Christians within the sects. The second great mistake was disfellowshipping the Christians within the restoration movement. Under threat for advocacy or acceptance of anything which differs from the established norm, research stopped and true study ended. The Bible became a book of proof-texts. It was searched not to find what to believe, but to prove what was already believed.
There was no weightier matters of the law, no justice, mercy and faith. Tithes of mint, anise and cummin became as important as trust in Jesus. Indeed, they were used as tests of faith. The attitude toward cups, classes and colleges supplanted the attitude toward the cross of Christ. Clever lawyers twisted the Word of God and manipulated their own ideas for political gain. Passions became inflamed over minor matters, and division occurred over secondary issues.
The kingdom of God became a hodgepodge of things. One could not be a citizen of it who regarded the Sunday School for example, as a matter of indifference. He was forced to take a stand. It was either or else. There was no middle ground. He had to become a partisan to become a Christian. It depended upon what kind of partisan he became as to what kind of Christian he was. To one side he was "loyal," to the other he was "disloyal." If, as the result of concentrated study, he made a change, he was regarded as a convert by one side, and a "turncoat" by the other.
The men who read the document thought they were
sincere. They were seeking to protect what they considered as erosion of
the faith. Actually what they did was to intrude upon the opinions of men
with their own opinions. Not everyone was willing to grant the right of others
to legislate for them. The address sowed dragon's teeth. Everyone of them
sprang from the earth a soldier in full panoply ready to fight. Debates occurred
everywhere. They increased the tensions already existing. Tempers flared.
Families divided. Hostility developed. Peace disappeared from the movement.
In 1906 actual division occurred and was recognized. It became a formal thing. The organ was blamed for it, but the division would have occurred if there had been no organ. Men had thought division. It had been preached from the pulpit. It was urged upon men as the will of God. The organ was visible. It could be seen. It was tangible. It could be felt. Men could vent their spleen against it. They did so by literally chopping the offending instrument into bits and throwing the pieces into the backyard. But the rancor existed in human hearts before it was overtly declared.
Slowly there had developed two approaches to interpretation of the Word of God. They were opposed to each other. One said that anything not specifically mentioned in the scriptures was acceptable provided that it did not violate any other scripture. The other said that anything not specifically mentioned in the scriptures was prohibited by the silence of the scriptures. An elaborate argument about the silence was worked out. These two ideas were destined for a crash because they were on a collision course. They met at the point where the instrument was introduced and disaster was the result.
The peculiar thing is that the Bible did not enjoin either of these presuppositions. No one who spoke where the Bible spoke, or remained silent where it was silent, could utter either one. Both had to be siphoned out by the dubious prooftext method which consisted of taking wholly unrelated passages and from them weaving a fabric favorable to a foregone conclusion. Both of them were spectacles donned before reading the scripture. By wearing them only one result could be achieved.
And so occurred once more what Thomas Campbell called "the heinous nature and pernicious tendency of religious controversy among Christians." Debates were held. History was searched. The revelation of heaven was meticulously gone over with a fine tooth comb. Not one organ was ever debated out. And the reason is that the organ was not the real criminal. We did not divide when the organ was introduced, and we would not unite if it were taken out.
We divided when we quit loving each other as brethren. We will unite again when we resume loving one another. The question is whether we want to win a debate or a brother. "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Love makes no demands. It assesses no requirements. It stipulates no conditions and requires no proof. It does not say that if you give up this or that I will love you. It loves you where you are and as you are. If you have something which hinders the closer walk you give it up, but you will be loved if you never give it up.
It would be a noble experiment to see what would happen in a community where division has occurred if one side were to continue to love the other as if nothing had happened. This would mean recognition of the division but paying no attention to it, treating it as if it were not there. It would include building no walls, erecting no barriers, and not working in a partisan sense. This is the Christian alternative to division the divine balm to be poured into a gaping wound to begin healing from inside out.
We made an inglorious fracture of the movement when we divided over instrumental music, as we thought. And we will never recover from it until we love one another enough to go back and repair it. With our first mistake we ceased to be a movement, with our second we ceased to be a restoration movement, with our third we ceased to be a force for unity. Ever after, men would ask "If you have discovered the secret for unity, why are you divided?" All of the answers we have stammered out, all of the half-truths we have uttered, all of the quibbles we have made have not been satisfactory.
This does not mean the adoption of instrumental music. Far from it. It only means the adoption of brethren who use it. It means recognizing them as brothers, and treating them as such. It means weeping with them when they weep, and rejoicing with them when they rejoice. It means letting each person stand or fall to his own master. It means recognition that the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy, which the Holy Spirit gives. And when someone serves Christ in this way, he pleases God and is approved by others.
We need to rise above the grievous mistakes of our fathers. We have done so in the political realm. Could anything have been more horrible than the violence of the Civil War? Could anything have been more awful than the burning, looting, pillaging, murder and rapine which blighted a great part of our nation? Who is there among us today who wants to continue the smoke and conflagration of that frightful conflict. Who wants to perpetuate the holocaust that swept a great part of our glorious land?
Yet the kingdom of heaven is still subject to brutal attack. Brethren war against brethren. Those of the same family lift up the mailed fist against each other. Let us reverse the decisions of yesterday. We have led the world in sordid division. Now let us lead in a return to unity. Let us dedicate our lives to the undoing of the deeds of yesteryear and to the promotion of peace on earth to men of goodwill. "On Zion, God's holy hill, there will be nothing harmful or evil. The land will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the seas are full of water." Lord, hasten that day!