Restoring Restoration

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     Abraham Altars was not a formal member of the Presbyterian Church. But he was a student of the Bible and he was interested in religion. Thus it happened that his farm home located between Mount Pleasant and Washington, Pennsylvania, became the scene of a meeting held in the summer of 1809 which was destined to directly affect our lives and several millions of others like us. This meeting, like all others of kindred nature, was but one link in a chain of events. It was forged out of circumstances which preceded it and became a vital cause in creating conditions which followed. It is doubtful that any of the rugged pioneers who gathered for the occasion sensed the impact which would be made upon future generations, but almost a century later J. B. Briney wrote:

     "Subsequent events show that this little meeting was probably the most important religious convocation that had ever met upon the American continent. It was made up of earnest, pious, God-fearing men whose souls were thoroughly tired of the jangling voices of a variant denominationalism, and who were in search of some common ground upon which all might stand together as one united brotherhood. Their chief concern was to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, and heal the gaping wounds of his bleeding and distracted body."

     The central figure in the meeting was Thomas Campbell, until recently a minister in the Seceder Presbyterian Church, whose teachings on the unity of believers in Christ and whose disregard for sectarian divisions had aroused much controversy. When he advocated that the Lord's Supper was for all of the Lord's people and that it was not a denominational gift to be bestowed upon the orthodox but a Christian privilege to be enjoyed by all the saints together he was accused before the Presbytery where he was formally tried and censured. He appealed to the Associate Synod of North America which set aside the censure on the basis of a technicality in the proceedings of the Presbytery. A committee was appointed to review the case and brought in a report that his replies were "evasive, unsatisfactory, and highly equivocal."

     Recognizing that he was laboring under a cloud of suspicion and that certain of his brethren were scrutinizing his every word and action he stood it as long as possible and then renounced the authority of the Synod and Presbytery. This meant that while he retained his membership in the Presbyterian Church, he would no longer be regarded as a minister of that communion. With a deep reverence for God, a profound respect for the Bible, and an intense love for the souls of men, he still sought to influence his neighbors for good. In his book Religion Follows the Frontier Winfred F. Garrison writes:

     "He continued preaching as opportunity offered, in churches wherever he was permitted, otherwise in private houses. The burden of his plea was for Christian liberality and union. Many heard him gladly. Among his hearers, who were for the most part Seceder Presbyterians, there developed a group of sympathizers among whom there was a vague bond in

[Page 2]

their general sentiment in favor of union and in the personal influence of Thomas Campbell."

     It will be readily understood that most of his preaching would be done in private homes rather than in meeting-houses, many of which would be closed to him. Accordingly the special meeting was convened at the home of Abraham Altars to determine what steps should be taken to encourage the fraternal spirit among those who loved righteousness. Mr. Campbell, in solemn and grave tones, stated the purpose of the meeting and proceeded to outline the reasons why the Christian domain was in such a serious state. J. B. Briney describes the speech in these words:

     "In simple but burning words of moving eloquence he dwelt upon the word of God as an infallible standard of faith and conduct, and as offering an ample basis of universal union and communion among Christian people. He called attention to the lamentable fact that men had not been satisfied with this heavenly boon, but had neglected and abandoned it for their own theories, speculations, and philosophies, thus breeding contention, strife, animosity and divisions among the disciples of Christ, who should be of one mind, one bean and one purpose. Having gone over the ground with great care and thoroughness, bringing the true situation vividly before the minds of his attentive bearers. he proceeded to promulgate the principle which, in his judgment, was to govern them in the work which they had undertaken."

     Mr. Campbell led up carefully to the climax of his speech. When the time came he announced the foundation upon which reformation should be attempted. "That rule, my respected hearers, is this, that where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." This statement fell like a thunderbolt upon the hearts of those who had been reared in a sectarian atmosphere. In his monumental work Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, the biographer Robert Richardson writes:

     "It was from the moment when these significant words were uttered and accepted, that the more intelligent ever afterwards dated the formal and actual commencement of the reformation which was subsequently carried on with so much success, and which has already produced such important changes in religious society over a large portion of the world."

     It was deemed essential to have a statement of their aims and objectives drawn up in formal fashion, and Thomas Campbell was assigned the task of writing the statement. He began the work immediately and in three weeks had completed his "Declaration and Address." On September 7 he read it to the members of the Association and after full study and discussion of the contents it was approved and an order issued to have it printed. As Mr. Campbell read to the interested group of farmers and tradesmen on that Thursday morning his family was on the stormy Atlantic bound for the new world. It would be another three weeks until the Latonia would dock in the harbor at New York on September 29.

     It is not our purpose in this article to analyze the notable document first read by its author in the little Pennsylvania community more than a hundred and fifty years ago. In our humble opinion it constitutes one of the greatest uninspired

[Page 3]

documents in the history of the Christian religion. We are chiefly concerned just now with the spirit which called it forth and with an examination of the current status of the movement which it launched. We are anxious to determine if that movement has forgotten its goal and gone aground on the rocks of party strife. First we propose to hear from the foreword of the document itself.

     "Moreover, being well aware from sad experience of the heinous nature and pernicious tendency of religious controversy among Christians; tired and sick of the bitter warrings and janglings of a party spirit, we would desire to be at rest; and, were it possible, would also desire to adopt and recommend such measures as would give rest to our brethren throughout all the churches--as would restore unity, peace and purity to the whole church of God."

     The "Declaration and Address" was written to promote peace on earth among men of good will by making them aware of God's will. It was an olive branch plucked off during the raging of the torrent of universal disturbance and schism. It originated because of an awareness of the futility of achieving the divine purpose on earth by the methods then employed. It contains this statement:

     "This desirable rest, however, we utterly despair to find for ourselves or to be able to recommend to our brethren, by continuing amid the diversity and rancor of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions."

     Two words stand out in this address desire and despair These are among the most forceful terms in human language. One expresses aspiration, the other frustration. Often these become the dissimilar parents of desperation. And the "Declaration and Address" was sired by the latter! A quarter of a century later Alexander Campbell looking back upon this preparatory stage of the restoration movement wrote in Christianity Restored as follows:

     "A deep and abiding impression that the power, the consolations and joys--the holiness aod happiness of Christ's religion were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in t h e speculations and conjectures, in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting the sects, or rather the Christians in all sects, upon a clear and scriptural bond of union; upon having a 'thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms, or in approved precedent, 'for every article of faith, and item of religious practice.' This was offered in the year 1809, in the 'Declaration and Address' of the Washington Association, Pennsylvania."

     These things stand out in bold relief! The restoration movement originated as a project for uniting the Christians in all the sects. It grew out of a "desire to be at rest" and to "recommend such measures as would give rest to our brethren throughout all the churches." It was engendered by an awareness of the "pernicious tendency of religious controversy among Christians." Those who inaugurated the project were "tired and sick of the bitter warrings and janglings of the party spirit." They were convinced that the power, the consolations, the joys, the holiness and happiness of the religion of Christ were all lost "in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms."

     Most of those who read my articles are heirs of this noble experiment. What is the present status of these heirs? They now represent the most divided movement in the contemporary American scene. The project originated to unite "the Christians in all the sects" has forsaken its original intent and become so involved in "feuds and bickerings" that it contributes only to "the bitter warrings and janglings of a party spirit." We have cluttered up the religious scene with a group of miniature sects the members of which are often filled with intolerance, hatred and bigotry. The worst is yet to come for if we continue to pursue the policy and philosophy which has governed us in the past there remains for us only more strife and division. Unless we alter our attitudes and transform our thinking we will bequeath to our children and our children's children a world so filled with religious tension and dissension that they will sink beneath the weight of our cruel folly!

     Our current state reminds one of Daedalus and his son Icarus in Grecian mythology. Daedalus, a sculptor and architect, fled to Crete after killing his pupil Talos. He was received by King Minos who com-

[Page 4]

missioned him to build a Labyrinth at Knossos, in which to confine the Minotaur, a monster with the body of a man and the head of a bull. This monster annually ate seven youths and seven maidens which had to be supplied by Athens. Unfortunately, Daedalus constructed the Labyrinth with such intricacy that he became lost in it himself and could not find the way out. Our brethren have spun a web of legalism and party tests which has them trapped until each generation adds new strands to bind them all the tighter.

     There are two major segments which have grown out of the "project...for uniting...the Christians in all the sects." Because the introduction of instrumental music into the corporate worship was one of the aggravating factors leading to separation these are commonly distinguished as instrumental and non-instrumental. The former have about five or six groups to their discredit but the latter have more than two dozen factions to their dishonor. No other religious movement is so strife-torn and factional. No other is so schismatic. We must face up to the true picture of the state to which our thinking has brought us.

     As the little band of Presbyterians stood in the "valley of decision" in 1809 so we stand once again in the same place in this our year of destiny. Shall we continue to promote the sectarian spirit, or shall we restore the spirit of restoration? Shall we plunge on deeper into the quicksands of partisanship and legalism or shall we revive in our generation "the desire to adopt and recommend such measures as would give rest to our brethren throughout all the churches--as would restore unity, peace and purity to the whole church of God"? The hour is growing late. The sands are running out of the upper glass. We must decide soon.

     Is there any hope remaining? We reply that there is provided we lose our fears and with true courage born of faith embark on the great adventure of discovery. Like the disciples of old we have been fishing too close to shore and we have toiled all night and caught nothing. At the bidding of the Master we must launch out into the deep and let down our nets. Certainly there is more danger but there is also greater reward. We must recapture a sense of the vitality of truth. We must cease to think that it will lose in every encounter with error. We must emerge from behind our sectarian walls and enter anew the fray in the whole Christian arena. In short, we must go back beyond the point where we gravitated into a sect and "take up the quarrel with the foe." And we must be able to distinguish between friend and foe. Jesus declared "He that is not against us is on our side" (Mark 9:40). We must quit assuming that he who is not at our side is always against us.

     It is obvious that there is a difference between the church of Christ and "The Church of Christ" just as there is a difference between the church of God and "The Church of God" in our time. The church of Christ embraces within it every saved person on earth. There is not a child of God outside of it. This is not the case with "The Church of Christ" as it came to be so designated among the religious bodies covered by the census. Indeed there are now some twenty-five parties which wear this title and with few exceptions each of these regards itself as the one holy, catholic and apostolic church of God on earth, while repudiating the claims of all the others. The exclusive attitude of these is an indication of the party spirit which motivates them.

     The church of Christ was in existence before the days of Alexander Campbell. He was a member of it even while he was allied with the Redstone and Mahoning Associations of the Baptist Church. But "The Church of Christ" as that title is now employed designates a party in Christendom which grew out of the reformatory work launched by the Camphells. The members of this party confusing it with the church of God now deny that there are Christians in the sects and most of them refuse to regard as brethren in the Lord those who are affiliated with other segments of the same movement. Instead of laboring to unite the Christians in all sects they frequently divide and separate from each other, setting up rival parties in the same area, thus adding to the confusion in the religious realm. Some of them go so far as to argue for re-immersion of those who come to them from other parties of the movement. Thus has the spirit of sectarianism crystallized in new tests of fellowship and unwritten creeds.

     "Preaching the gospel and teaching the converts are as distinct and distinguishable employments as enlisting an army and training it or as creating a school and teaching it. Unhappily, for the church and the world, this distinction, if at all conceded as legitimate, is obliterated or annulled in almost all protestant Christendom. The public heralds of Christianity, acting as missionaries or evangelists, and the elders or pastors of Christian churches are indiscriminately denominated preachers or ministers; and whether addressing the church or the world, they are alike preaching or ministering some things they call Gospel...They seem to have never learned the difference between preaching and teaching."

     Because of the fatal errors arising from confusion at this point Campbell was insistent that a return to the vocabulary of the Spirit must include a proper understanding of the distinction between these words. In Popular Lectures and Addresses he said:

     "The difference between preaching and teaching Christ, so palpable in the apostolic age, though now confounded in

[Page 6]

the theoretic theologies of our day, must be well defined and clearly distinguished in the mind, in the style and utterance of an evangelist or missionary who would be a workman that need not to blush, a workman covetous of the best gifts and of the richest rewards..."

     The difference between the good news which was to be proclaimed and the system of doctrine which must be interpreted and taught is clearly marked in an article in Millennial Harbinger for April, 1862:

     "We preach, or report, or proclaim news. But who teaches news? Who exhorts it? We preach the gospel to unbelievers, to aliens, but never to Christians, or to those who have received it. Paul taught the Christians; he admonished, exhorted, commanded and reproved Christians and on some occasions declared the glad tidings to them who had received them, but who seemed to have forgotten them, as he wrote to the Corinthians."

     Let me explain why it is so important to the community of saints to recognize and maintain this distinction. Jesus commissioned the apostles to proclaim the gospel to all creation. He declared that those who believe and are immersed will be saved. Salvation from past sins and introduction into the fellowship is conditioned upon belief of the gospel. The gospel consists of facts related to Jesus Christ. That which must be believed in order to salvation is that Jesus is the Messiah and God's Son.

     Many today have been conditioned to think that the entire scope of the new covenant scriptures constitutes the gospel. They regard the letters addressed to churches and individuals as part of the gospel. Since one must believe the gospel in order to be saved it follows that one must understand and accept their reasoning and interpretation of every point of doctrine to be recognized as a child of God. We must never overlook the fact that the partisan spirit always substitutes the interpretation of God's word for the word itself and demands conformity not just to what God says but to what the party deduces he meant when he said it. This completely alters the Christian system. It makes salvation dependent upon attainment to a certain degree of knowledge rather than upon faith in a person.

     This has been the real root of division within all Christendom. It is the basis of most controversy among sincere religionists. It is the ground of orthodoxy which has been used to stifle all original thought and hound out as traitors all honest dissenters. It is the rock upon which every restoration movement in history has run aground and been battered to pieces. The Camphells clearly understood this and labored to offset it in advance. They did this by two methods. First, they carefully defined the terms essential to entrance into the fellowship, showing what was involved in faith. In the second place they carefully pointed out that unanimity of opinion, interpretation or knowledge in doctrinal matters could never be made a proper foundation for unity.

     With reference to the first Alexander Campbell wrote in The Christian System as follows:

     "But the grandeur, sublimity and beauty of the foundation of hope, and of ecclesiastical or social union, established by the author and founder of Christianity, consisted in this--that the belief of one fact...is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes to salvation. The belief of this one fact, and submission to one institution expressive of it, is all that is required of heaven to admission into the church."

     That there may be no question as to what is meant by this language Campbell proceeds to explain further:

     "The one fact is expressed in a single proposition--that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah... The one institution is baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every such person is a disciple in the fullest sense of the word, the moment he has believed this fact...and has submitted to the above-mentioned institution; and whether he believes the five points condemned, or the five points approved, by the Synod of Dort, is not so much as to be asked of him: whether he holds any of the views of the Calvinists or Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, or Quakers, is never once to be asked of such persons, in order to admission into the Christian community called the church."

     Having come to a realization through observation and study that fellowship in Christ can never be made contingent upon conformity in interpretation, Thomas

[Page 7]

Campbell expressed this idea in his "Declaration and Address." The careful student will be amazed at the wisdom exhibited in his statement. It places reasoning and research in proper perspective. The right of every individual to go directly to the sacred writings for himself and the concomitant right to form conclusions based upon his personal investigation is asserted. It is conceded that when deductive reasoning is fairly done the concepts may be called the doctrine of God's word. But it is asserted that these concepts are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians except as they grasped and understood to be truth.

     I must confess that I studied this matter for years before I caught the significance of the word "formally." Every man who sets to his seal that God is true thereby obligates himself to accept all truth as revealed by God. But the nature of man necessitated that revelation be given gradually and progressively--"line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little." Revelation has been perfected but man has not. His knowledge and understanding of truth must also be gradual and progressive. He must "grow in grace and knowledge of the truth." Every man in Christ sustains a moral obligation to the Creator to accept all truth as it is revealed to his consciousness to be truth. Because of his frailty and imperfection some things may appear to be truth in one stage of development which will need to be discarded in the brightness of greater light.

     No two of us possess the same degree of mental aptitude. We are at various stages of growth and intellectual attainment. It would violate conscience to be forced to acknowledge as truth that which cannot be personally established as truth. To take the reasoning of one individual or group and bind that formally upon all others, even those who have not as yet been able to arrive at the same conclusions, is to do an injustice to the human spirit and is a violation of the Christian ethic. Such matters must not be made terms of fellowship but belong to the edification of the members of the body in love.

     It would be as absurd to demand conformity of all to a higher degree of attainment in a system conditioned upon progression in knowledge as to demand it in a world requiring progression in revelation. In other words, one could as justifiably demand that Isaac and Jacob understand the epistle to the Romans in order to be saved as to demand that every person in the fellowship of Christ fully grasp all that is implied in chapter twenty of the Revelation letter to be saved. Every child of God is morally bound by his relationship to Jesus to accept all truth as he becomes aware of it but the relationship we sustain to each other does not convey the right to formally bind our interpretations upon each other. Any such coercion and compulsion of spirit must result in faith in the wisdom of men. All that we have thus stated is contained in a few simple sentences written by Thomas Campbell in these words:

     "That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet they are not formally binding upon the conscience of Christians further than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so, for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but properly do belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the church's confession."

     It has been the fate of most religious reformations "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men in Christ are created equal" to fall into the hands of ambitious men who manipulate them to the achievement of their own ends. Men desire the blessings of freedom without accepting the responsibilities associated therewith. It is easier to abdicate our share in the royal priesthood than to serve in our capacity. As any such movement grows its adherents moved by frantic fear for its survival come to depend more and more upon methods devised by human ingenuity and less and less upon the providential care of God.

[Page 8]

     Almost without exception every reformation inaugurated to free men from the dominance of a clergy has ended up with a clergy of its own. The clerical spirit thrives on the party spirit and is sustained by it. The clergymen become the authorized interpreters of the oracles of God. By subtle means the average man becomes convinced that he cannot understand the will of the Lord so he relegates this to professionals, trained specialists. By the same token the doctrinal interpretations of these must be accepted without question. To doubt the clergy is to disbelieve God. The Romish church set up an infallible interpreter. Most of the parties growing out of the Restoration Movement believe they have an infallible interpretation. The last is actually worse than the first for belief in an infallible interpreter will at least preserve unity. The Roman Catholic Church today is one of the most tightly knit organizations in the world. An infallible interpretation substitutes party dogmas for papal decrees and is productive of division every time someone discovers additional truth.

     Perhaps it was a realization of the dangers inherent in dogmatism and orthodoxy that prompted Thomas Campbell to reject doctrinal knowledge and conformity as the basis for Christian fellowship. Of course he was also motivated by a clear conception of the foundation of communion as expressed by God. One reads with wonder and amazement the safeguards thrown about truth and his heart is saddened to see how his own brethren by deviating from these announced principles have not only failed the restoration movement but have become sectarian in doing so. Consider the following clear statement as found in the "Declaration and Address":

     "That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths and defensive testimonies, in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes the better; yet, as these must be, in a great measure, the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion, unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information, whereas the church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers."

     There is no use denying that the heirs of the great project to "unite the Christians in all the sects" is now "in evil case." The two errors in thought with which we have been dealing are not the only ones which foster the partisan spirit that has fragmentized and fractionalized us. We have referred to them in this treatise primarily because the first confuses the nature of the church of God while the second confuses the nature of the message of God. These are fundamental. It was because of these two grave errors in the religious world that the "Declaration and Address" was written. That document was clear upon these issues. It is a sad and tragic thing that we have now made a full circle and are once more involved in sectarianism of our own creation because we have lost the truths enunciated so many years ago.

     Unless there is a reversal of attitude and a change of philosophy "the Churches of Christ" can only look forward to a grim future of strife, contention and division. These various parties contain within themselves the seeds of schism and they will "multiply and fill the earth after their kind." There will be little of a constructive nature contributed to the distressed and distraught realm of Christendom.

     "Tired of new creeds and new parties in religion, and of the numerous abortive effons to reform the reformation; con-

[Page 9]

vinced from the Holy Scriptures, from observation and experience, that the union of the disciples of Christ is essential to the conversion of the world, and that the correction and improvement of no creed or partisan establishment in Christendom, could ever become the basis of such a union, communion and cooperation, as would restore peace to a church militant against itself, or triumph to the common salvation; a few individuals. about the commencement of the present centnry, began to reflect upon the ways and means to restore primitive Christianity."

     The same situation now prevails among the heirs of the restoration movement. If that movement was the answer to the tragic state existing in the early part of the previous century is it not the answer to the same tragic state existing in the last half of the twentieth century? Is it not time once more that a few individuals begin to reflect upon ways and means? In short, is it not time to restore the spirit of restoration?