Restoration Astray

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     The task of a faithful historian is never an easy one. Human nature being what it is no cause involving men, regardless of the high ideals with which it began, can long continue uncorrupted. The true recorder of events must not allow his personal bias to influence him to the extent that he will unduly emphasize the gains and successes and withhold from the reader the less flattering aspects. It is in such an attitude that we undertake our current series of investigations. Only time and our finished product can reveal whether we will be able to maintain that degree of objectivity with which we begin.

     Most of those who read this little journal are the heirs of a noble religious experiment which was launched about the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was described by one of its chief advocates as "a project to unite the Christians in all sects." In previous issues we have sought to trace the roots of this worthy endeavor. We have explored the background, character and other factors in the lives of the men who were motivated to inaugurate such a majestic program.

     We regret that our task is not completed. It would be pleasant to halt our narrative on the high plane of idealism with which the Restoration movement began. Unfortunately, that movement has now degenerated into the most divided one in the contemporary religious scene. In addition to the major cleavage occasioned by introduction of instrumental music, there are now some two dozen segments of the non-instrument group alone. We propose to examine the underlying causes contributing to the rise of factionalism and determine if possible when the disciple brotherhood abandoned its original aim. Our purpose is not to be merely critical of past attitudes but to personally profit by the mistakes of our predecessors. Certainly we can better get the Restoration movement back on the main track if we know at what point it was derailed.

     In developing this phase of the subject it is impossible to write as a disinterested observer or an outsider. The writer, after leaving the Lutheran communion at an early age, virtually grew up in one of the parties resulting from disintegration of the Restoration movement. The members of this splinter group regarded it as the church of God on earth. It alone constituted the kingdom of heaven, and its constituents were the only faithful children of God. All others were looked upon as aliens or errorists whose only hope of eternal life lay in locating and formally attaching themselves to one of the "loyal" congregations, a term used to designate those local units which met the party tests.

     I freely confess that I was factional in my outlook. I conformed without question to the traditions of the party fathers. Everyone who did not conform I regarded as either a sectarian or a hobbyist. When one altered his views and could no longer

[Page 2]

endorse our position fully I looked upon him as a traitor to Jesus and an apostate from the faith. I either joined in verbally "stoning" him or figuratively held the coats of those who did so. I helped to drive from us those whose only guilt was that they were too honest to allow us to continue to think that they condoned our interpretation on every point.

     When I write about the factional spirit I write from experience. I know the extent to which one may deceive himself into believing that a party is the one body, and that no one can be joined unto Jesus who is not an adherent of the party. I know how sincerely men may labor under this delusion to make the sacred scriptures a factional oracle and interpret each passage as if it were written solely to advocate the party platform. I know what it means to search the word of God as a favorite debater and recognized champion to find those passages which can be used to gain a victory over the chosen gladiator of a rival party. I can say truthfully that I never doubted when I engaged in any debate that I alone represented the church of God on earth and that my opponent was deceived, if not actually a deceiver.

     Now I am saddened by my past disposition of intolerance and lack of charity. It only contributed to greater dissension and gendered more strife in a world already too filled with that unwholesome commodity. We gain nothing for the cause of our Lord by selfishness and bigotry. While most of us had little to do with the creation of those factions with which we are allied, our perpetuation of them only serves to add to the confusion and distress of the religious realm. No segment, group, or faction growing out of the Restoration movement is the church of Christ to the exclusion of all others. Not even "The Church of Christ" as a separate organization listed in the United States Census is the church of God exclusively. The census bureau can number, list and catalogue the members of an organization, but only God knows the names of all who are in the divine organism--the one body.

     Certainly when the Restoration movement ceased to be a means to an end and became the end, it then and there became merely another religious organization among many others. It can never be restored to its original aim and purpose until its members are made to realize that the work of restoration was never completed. Only when these disciples are ready to assume the task of seeking to "unite the Christians in all the sects" can it truly be said that we have resumed where our fathers left off. We must regard the interim as a mere interlude and the structure (or structures) we have erected as but temporary at best, in many cases unnecessary and in some cases detrimental to the cause of our Lord. It will be difficult indeed for most of us to attain to this plane of thought but unless we do we can only look forward to other divisions in the future. We will cumber the ground instead of bearing fruit and God may order that we be cut down.

     In this study of causes we shall attempt to be factual and practical. Our aim will not be to find fault or to assess guilt but to study those factors which operated in the lives of men at certain stages of the Restoration movement contributing to its present state. Men live but a few decades at most. Their lives and convictions are shaped by their environment and training. They seldom accumulate a great deal

[Page 3]

of knowledge of the past. They cannot peer into the future and determine the ultimate consequences of their acts. They can only practice and perform in the light available unto them. Perhaps in the same circumstances we would proceed exactly as they did. We will not help the present by being bitterly censorious of those who preceded us nor arrogantly self-righteous about our own attitudes or abilities. If our fathers slew the prophets we need not garnish their tombs.

     The creeds of men were regarded as statements of crystallized opinion, divisive in their very nature because they demanded conformity in the realm of opinion and proscribed all who could not in good conscience conform. They were not rejected merely because they were creeds, that is statements of belief, but because they all created a false basis of acceptance and justification by setting up agreement in irrelevant matters as the ground of salvation. It was proposed to offset and eliminate the baneful effects of these by a re-affirmation of the divine creed, belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ and the Son of God.

     This was deemed the central fact of the whole Christian system. It was the hub which joined all of the spokes together and while these might appear to be far apart at the perimeter they were held together in a unified whole by the rim of love, that circumferential tie which maintained a unity in diversity. Those who were joined to Christ might differ about many matters of opinion and interpretation but these were to be subjects for discussion and not occasions for division. Nothing was to be regarded of the same importance as the recognition of the Sonship of Jesus for upon this fact the salvation of the whole world depended. It was primary while matters of doctrinal growth were secondary. Faith was to hold a man to Christ while opinions were held by men in Christ.

Aylette Raines was born in Spottsylvania county, Virginia, January 22, 1798, and was sprinkled in the Episcopal Church when four years old. When he was 13 years old the family moved to Kentucky where he later began teaching at the age of 18, continuing for three years. He then moved to Crawford county, Indiana, and here fell under the powerful influence of a sect of the Universalists. Being a young man of brilliance and unlimited courage he began proclaiming the final holiness, happiness and salvation of all men. He was joined in this endeavor by a good friend and fellow-worker, E. Williams. They called themselves "Restorationists" because of their belief that all men would be restored to original purity and perfection.

     Raines carried his message into Ohio where he learned that Walter Scott was making a tremendous impact upon the thinking of the people. Convinced of the rightness of his position, and ready to meet any who challenged it, Raines went

[Page 4]

to hear Scott. The first message made a profound impression upon him and he returned only to have his initial impressions strengthened. The conviction took hold of him that he had not been proclaiming the gospel at all. The philosophy he had been announcing, whether it was true or false, could not save a man from sin. If one believed it there was nothing in it to save him, if he disbelieved it there was nothing in it to damn him. He began to preach the Good News that Jesus was the Messiah and God's Son and that justification from past sins was achieved through faith in this fact. Meanwhile he still retained his philosophy called "Restorationism."

     The change in his presentation brought Raines into conflict with his former colleagues. After much discussion with Williams the latter also became convinced of the rightness of the gospel plea. He and Raines went down into the water and Williams immersed Raines into Christ, whereupon Raines reciprocated by immersing Williams. Mr. Raines then made application to be received into the Mahoning Association and this provided the first real test of the principle that men can be united in the faith while holding to divergent opinions about speculative matters. Of this occasion one historian who was later intimately associated with Aylette Raines writes as follows:

     "It was at this point that the first great danger arose to try the nerves and test the wisdom of the pioneers in this cause, and put to the proof the principles which they had espoused, and upon which they had launched their enterprise. It was the question whose solution was to determine the fate of the Restoration. If the disciples could not be united in faith and have fellowship with each other, while holding contrary opinions as respects matters lying outside the circle of faith, then the movement was doomed to dismal failure. But if they could do these two things, the success of their plea could not he thwarted. Thus the most momentous interests were placed in the balance."

     Fortunately at the next meeting of the Mahoning Association both Thomas and Alexander Campbell, as well as Walter Scott, were present. Jacob Orsborne introduced the matter and asked for a definite settlement of the question whether a man holding the views of Aylette Raines should be accepted. Thomas Campbell was the first to speak on the subject. He expressed regret that such questions should even be introduced or that a man's opinion should be held to be a subject for discussion. He said,

     "Brother Raines has been with me during the last several months and we have fully unbosomed ourselves to each other. He is philosophically a Restorationist and I am a Calvinist, but notwithstanding this difference of opinion between us, I would put my right hand into the fire and have it burned off, before I would hold up my hands against him. And from all I know of Brother Raines, if I were Paul, I would have him in preference to any young man of my acquaintance to be my Timothy."

     Alexander Campbell spoke next. He reviewed what he had said so often about the distinction between faith and opinion. He asserted that if a man held to and proclaimed the everlasting gospel of Christ large liberty should be allowed him in the domain of private opinion. He proposed that Mr. Raines give assurance that he would proclaim the gospel as did the apostles and retain his opinions as private property. Walter Scott concurred with the Campbells and Raines expressed his intention to pursue the course suggested. The question was then put to the Association. "Whether there be any law of Christ by which a brother could be condemned who deported himself as Mr. Raines proposed to do." The Association voted by a large majority that there was no scriptural ground for

[Page 5]

rejecting such a person and he was received with full accord.

     The sequel to this account is found in this statement published by Aylette Raines near the close of his long and eventful career in the service of Christ:

     "The great kindness and magnanimity with which the Campbells and Walter Scott treated me after my baptism, and before I was convinced of the erroneousness of my restorationist philosophy. They used to say to me, 'It is a mere philosophy like Calvinism and Arminianisin, and no part of the gospel.' They made these isms of but little value and therefore not worth contending for, and they did not put themselves in conflict with my philosophy, but rather urged me to preach the gospel in matter and form as did the apostles. This all appeared to me to be reasonable, and I did it; and one of the consequences was, that the philosophy within me became extinct, having no longer the coals of contention by which to warm or the crumbs of sectarian righteousness upon which to feed."

     There existed some grave differences in the position of Stone and Campbell. Although both had grown up in the Presbyterian communion their backgrounds were divergent. When Stone became convinced as early as 1804 that immersion was the apostolic practice he did not see the relation of baptism for the remission of sins. He would not consent to join the Baptist party and no Baptist preacher would immerse him unless he did, so he was immersed by a Presbyterian. After Campbell was immersed the Brush Run congregation (in 1813) made application to be received into the Redstone Baptist Association and acceptance was granted. Alexander Campbell believed that among the Baptists there could be accomplished a work of reformation unparalleled on earth. In 1825 he wrote:

     "In one thing the Baptists may appear, in time to come, proudly singular and preeminently distinguished. Their historian in the year 1900 may say, We are the only people who ever did tolerate any person to continue as a reformer or restorer among us. While other Sects excluded all who would have enlarged their views or exalted their virtues, while every Jerusalem in Christendom stoned its own prophets and exiled its own best friends and compelled them to set up for themselves, we (Baptists) constituted the only exception of this kind in the annals of Christianity--nay, in the annals of the world."

     This statement proved too optimistic and the union with the forces of Stone established the breach with the Baptists. An outstanding Baptist leader said, "The Campbellites have made the gulf between us impassable by throwing themselves into the arms of the Arians." The uniting of the two forces striving for restoration was not easy but finally accomplished by the utter crucifixion of the party spirit. There were two main areas of difference which had to be resolved. One had to do with the name by which the saints should be designated, the other with the nature of Jesus Christ or the doctrine of "the Trinity."

     Stone had long contended that the reformers should be styled Christians, while Alexander Campbell held out for the word disciples. He advanced his reasons for his position in well prepared essays as was his custom on any controversial issue. It was here the basic principle of the restoration exhibited its utility and the question was resolved by refusing to bind upon the brethren either position in a dogmatic fashion. J. B. Briney wrote of their agreement as follows:

     "As religious names the early restorers saw that the only thing essential to unity was to discard all human and unscriptural

[Page 6]

names, and wear only such as are approved by the scriptures--any of them or all of them. It was discovered that a single name was not necessary to unity, for it was noticed that the primitive church was united, although the members were known by various names, such as disciples, Christians, saints, brethren, etc. In this matter and within New Testament limits the followers of Christ are free."

     The other problem was more difficult. Stone rejected the speculative Trinitarian formula which was written into the orthodox creeds. Since all creeds are regarded by their adherents as being merely statements summarizing the doctrine of God, to reject the language of the creed as they look at it is to reject the word of God. Accordingly the Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists of that day concluded that any man who refused to be designated a Trinitarian must be a Unitarian. In vain Stone tried to tell them that he was neither and in an attempt to explain his position he made statements which were twisted and stretched by his opponents into apparent denial of the deity of Jesus. The preachers of the various sects placed their interpretations on what Stone said and forthwith attacked those interpretations as representing his position. The battle waxed great.

     It was in this instance that the distinction between faith and opinion saved the day. Those who were allied with both the "Christians" and the "disciples" believed in and proclaimed the facts of the gospel. All acknowledged that Jesus of Nazareth was the only begotten Son of God, that he was made flesh and dwelled among men, that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day for our justification. All agreed that we are cleansed from our sins by his blood and that he ever lives to make intercession for us. All recognized him as the great high priest residing at the right hand of God. They agreed to proclaim these things in the language of the Spirit and to insist upon no special theory or view of his pre-incarnate nature. Each man might retain his personal opinion as to the mode of divine existence but to advocate such an opinion was distinct from preaching the word. Consequently they agreed to give themselves to proclaiming the gospel while retaining their opinions to themselves. Again we quote from J. B. Briney:

     "But happily they soon came to see that it was wholly a speculative matter that did not pertain either to human salvation or Christian living, and that it should not be made a test of fellowship among disciples of Christ, nor of controversy among brethren--that it should be relegated to the realm of opinion and every individual left free to hold such opinions on the subject as might seem to each one to be most in accord with Scripture teaching and human reason."

     Under the guise of upholding the authority of God's word the representatives of each faction put forward their own interpretations and opinions and these are made the criteria of judgement. The honest soul who cannot in good conscience conform is branded as a heretic and expelled from the party. There are as many standards of authority as there are factions and each faction protests that it alone is "loyal" and all of the rest are traitors and apostates. The least deviation from a traditional procedure is regarded as an excuse to destroy all brotherly relationship and becomes

[Page 7]

the occasion of another division. Nothing is so cheap, nothing so little valued among members of "The Church of Christ" as brotherhood. It can be strangled or crucified at a moment's notice and over the most trivial matters.

     Although each faction still pays lip service to the distinction between matters of faith and opinion, no two groups are agreed on what things belong in either of these categories. What is considered a matter of faith by one group is recognized as a matter of opinion by others, and vice versa. Almost without exception they have lost the distinction between the gospel of Christ and the apostolic doctrine and have made the tragic mistake of concluding that all of the new covenant writings are a part of the gospel. This is the weak spot in the armor, the Achilles' heel, which must some day doom the movement to extinction unless corrected! So long as this fallacy is maintained there can be predicted a dire future of division and strife in which blinded partisans will bite and devour one another until the inevitable fate of such conduct overtakes them.

     Many of the current divisions could never have occurred if men had been true to the principles which sparked the restoration movement. Unfortunately, the Campbells and their contemporaries were succeeded by men of lesser ability and greater personal ambition and we can today see the result in a disturbed and scattered brotherhood. Men have climbed to prominence as the chief proponents or opponents of certain issues which should always have been kept in the realm of opinion. When issues are forced and stressed beyond their proper proportion and relation to the Christian system only strife and evil can result. The intemperate attack on brethren who hold certain views always results in crystallization of party feeling. Some men seem to thrive as defenders of orthodoxy and must find an issue to keep themselves in the public eye. If they do not find one they invent one or distort the position of some other brother.

     I do not subscribe to the pre-millennial viewpoint. My personal position is opposed to this interpretation, but it is absolutely unthinkable to me that such a thing should be made a condition or test of fellowship. It happens that many of the pioneers in the restoration movement were inclined toward the pre-millennial idea of the coming of our Lord but this did not affect their association with brethren who felt otherwise. It was only after men were betrayed into adopting the factional attitude and setting up orthodoxy as the basis of fellowship that the matter was pressed and pursued until schism resulted. It was repeated and rehearsed like playing on a harp with one string until it seemed that a position on this matter was the most important thing in all Christendom.

     One is made to wonder to what extent future generations are made to suffer under the stigma created by ambitious and implacable leaders of previous decades. Many of our current divisions are inherited and the real cause which produced them originally was the temperament of the leaders in the early struggle. Of all the inexcusable, unjustifiable, and ridiculous divisions to perpetuate among a people who propose to bring unity to a divided religious world, that over the pre-

[Page 8]

millennial interpretation is the worst. Here is dogmatism gone to seed! An acceptance of an opinion as to the millennium is not essential to one's salvation. Thousands of men and women died for the faith of the gospel long before John wrote the Revelation letter. As a result of this scandal in the Restoration movement we now have two well defined parties with little fraternal exchange between them. This is the result of pressures and insistence from both sides followed by the inevitable public debates in which partisan gladiators spar for every forensic advantage. Neither side is guiltless before God. Both tend to look with some misgiving, and often with open suspicion, upon those who are not allied with their party. It is probable that those of pre-millennial leanings are somewhat more lenient and charitable than some of their rabid opponents, but they are certainly not all free from factional bias. The rash accusations made against them have caused them to counter with everything at their command and truth lies wounded in the street, the innocent victim of such exchanges.

     We need to eliminate such cleavages and tear down the walls that have been erected against brothers in the Lord. It will be difficult because of prejudicial statements that have been made. Not long ago an official in a southern "Church of Christ" college told me that the pre-millennial brethren preached another Jesus. I told him that they recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and God's Son and this was the same Jesus whom I also confessed. He pointed out what he alleged were certain mistakes in their views about the position of Jesus. Apparently he could not grasp the difference between mistaken identity and wrong ideas about the right person.

     I am not a member of any kind of millennial party. I welcome as my brothers in Christ those who hold the various views and ideas of the Lord's return. Certainly some of them are mistaken, and in some respects they may all prove to be. But it is not a view as to how he will come again that is the foundation of Christian union. It is belief that he has come in the flesh! "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2). Brethren should cease to proclaim as gospel their opinions and interpretations relative to the second coming. These are not a part of the gospel, whether they be right or wrong. We should not try to bind these views upon anyone as essential to salvation for they are not, and by the same token they should not be made tests of fellowship.

     Our separation over such matters is an outgrowth of the party spirit. This is a work of the flesh. It is a sign of unspirituality and immaturity. It will damn us if we persist in it and refuse to repent. A man may be wrong about the millennium and go to heaven if he does not have the party spirit; he may be right about the millennium and go to hell if he does have the party spirit Any man who makes a test of fellowship out of a millennial interpretation--pre or post, pro or con--creates an unwritten creed. Such a person is a partisan and a factionalist. There have been too many such factionalists on both sides of the issue. All such persons are childish, puerile in thought, and like ordinary men of the world. "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?"

     If we are ever to put an end to the shameful state which now exists we must rise above the factional spirit in which we have been reared. We must recognize as our brethren those who are on both sides of the fences that men have constructed. I want it known to all who read this that I shall not allow such issues as the one under discussion to affect my relationship with any of my brethren. I propose to move freely among all of them, associate with them, respect them and love them. I shall not allow myself to be forced into any kind of party relative to the millennium through threats, coercion, group pressure or fear of boycott. It is time to call a halt to the insane frenzy of factionalism which will make a shambles of our plea!

[Page 9]

     I shall allow no theory or opinion about the coming of my Lord to drive me into hatred or antagonism toward any of my brothers for whom that Lord died. I love them because they are children of the same Father as myself. "Every one who loves the parent loves the child" (John 5:1). Jesus did not accept these because they held a particular view as to his second coming; I will not reject them for that reason! It is time to awaken out of sleep. It is time to repair the divisive damage our fathers have wrought. They were sincere but they were wrong about the implications of brotherhood and fellowship. Because they ate sour grapes is no indication that their children's teeth should be set on edge!

     Let those of us who truly love God begin now to show it by loving all of His children. Let us move freely among all of our brethren, loving them and praying for them in spite of their treatment of us. If we cannot batter down the stone walls that men have erected to debar their brethren let us gather the tools for those who come after us so they may be more successful because of our preparatory efforts. Those stones which are loosened from the wall, let us not hurl at each other, but pile them up for a foundation of a bridge of good will which may some day span the chasm caused by the erosion of the soil of brotherhood. Let us not bequeath to our posterity the sad legacy that we have had bestowed upon us by our fathers. It is time to do a right about face if we are to face about right!

     In order to properly assess the magnitude of work we must do in the recovery of the sense of brotherhood we propose to deal frankly and candidly with how and where the Restoration movement was diverted and sidetracked. This will mean the debunking of some of our long cherished grounds for partisan boasting. Certainly those who have been regarded as party heroes will be found to be all too human and our earthly idols will be found to have feet of clay. However, our purpose will not be to affix personal judgment but simply to re-discover those lost principles which will enable us to overcome the tragic state which now renders our plea for unity a laughingstock before the world. May we have your interest in the next issue which will get to the very core of our problem.

     We trust that our brethren will look charitably upon our humble effort to face up to the grave problem of disunity in our day. We make no vaunted boast of having all the answers. We are merely sharing with you our ideas of what we believe will usher in a brighter future for our children. If you cannot concur in our thinking we will love and respect you just the same. We are not obligated to love the things that have divided us. We are obligated to love our brethren. We do not regard them as separated from us but we are separated from each other. If our words seem critical and censorious of brethren we beg your forgiveness. We are not fighting our brethren; we are warring only against the factional attitude. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood." We eagerly solicit your prayers in our behalf, regardless of your present alliance. May God be with you all.