The Black Restoration Churches

By Carl Sullivan

[Page 120]

     Due to the nature of this article, I hasten to assure you it is not my intention to present myself as the authority in the realm of what constitutes "black" Christianity. But my close association and personal observation of what is happening to the "black" restoration movement, gives me confidence to express myself on the subject. When I use the term "restoration churches" in this article I am referring solely to the "Churches of Christ," the only branch in the movement of which I can claim intimate knowledge, because of my personal religious background.

     The restoration movement as it relates to black churches is pitiably weak, in view of the mission which Christ has ordained for us. There are reasons for this which can be easily recognized by those close to the black churches. This weakness should concern both those who are interested in the restoration movement in general and in the black movement in particular.

     A reason of primary significance is in origin. Though some would deny it, black churches have a different origin than their white countertypes. The "white" church claims an origin on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus, but they

[Page 121]

modify this by saying their attempt is to reconstruct in this century the church they read about in the first century. The black church does not, as a whole, even deal with the restoration movement concept. They rather dogmatically maintain that their origin was on Pentecost. To many of them the term "restoration movement" has no significance at all. "The church was started on Pentecost, and that's all I need to know and all I want to know!"

     The white churches acknowledge as a basis of their historic foundation, the teachings of Alexander Campbell and others of like persuasion. Although denying they are "Campbellites" many of them have said that they owe to Campbell a very rich heritage.

     On the other hand, just what did the black churches have as a modern precedent, in establishing themselves as expounders of that which is Christian and especially that which is first century Christian. Because of a lack of proper access to the rich knowledge that Campbell left, they had to rely on what crumbs of new testament ways fell from the tables of the white churches.

     I can see in this whole process, a cycle that is as distinct as the large "C" in the term "Churches of Christ." What Campbell was after was something very pure and noble as far as Jesus' movement was concerned. He wanted to go back all the way to the first century to find a basis which all professed Christians could use as an example of how to conduct themselves. In this going back he felt that he could come closest to Jesus himself. He would make historical contact with those who were closely allied in spirit and in time to the great Master Teacher. Logically speaking, theirs should be the purest form of Christianity in practice, for this could only be experienced by those that were eyewitnesses to the initial movement, or by their contemporaries.

     Campbell sought as a basis nothing other than the documents of the inspired writers. His was a noble quest. But the movement which followed Campbell lost the zeal for searching which Campbell had. They enjoyed a type of security in the foundation that Campbell, Stone and others, had left for them. Their task then became the preservation of the community of reformers rather than the continuous search into the riches of the new testament documents in order to perfect that which had been started for them. What resulted was a community of followers inferior to that envisioned by Campbell.

     Then there were those who came behind even those who attempted to pattern themselves after those who patterned themselves after Campbell. The latter I see as the existent "white" churches of Christ. If this is true, what the latter experienced was even less pure than the purity of those who received the understandably impure attempt by the to-be- commended Alexander Campbell. That is, theirs is a fifth-handed movement at its best!

     The effect of this influence can be seen in the literature, thought-patterns and procedures of Sunday worship in the black churches. For a simplified illustration, while maturing in the black churches, I always wondered where our pat and methodical prayer originated--the one that everyone knows and almost everyone repeats. Then, while visiting a congregation, I was confounded when I heard this

[Page 122]

same prayer uttered almost word for word by one of my white brothers.

     Even in the literature one can find evidences of exclusively "white" Christianity. Many times I have read in Gospel Advocate anti-black sentiments. One only has to experience a service of song in the black churches to learn that what is being sung is not something uniquely black. That is, the mode of expression seems to be an adopted one, rather than one coming from the heart. It is not accidental that there is a gap between what white Americans in general experience as "good music," and what black Americans in general experience as "good music." They both have a taste or liking for what is indigenous to themselves. There is, if nothing else, a cultural difference. Much discussion can be held on similar differences but that is not dealing with the primary issue at hand.

     The reason, possibly, that the black restoration churches are weak, may be the same reason their white counterpart is not projecting the positive moving influence which Jesus intended for it. The reason the black churches are weaker (and this is solely an opinion) even than their white countertype is due to the fact that they are trying to imitate the white churches. This is not to say that all imitation is bad. On the contrary, imitation is sometimes very good. Paul called for Christans to imitate him as he imitated Jesus.

     But I am afraid the black churches are imitating (and I say this sorrowfully) a weak white church, that is, weak in the sense of what its priorities are and should be. The consequence on the black movement is a weakness and ineffectiveness worse than that inherent in what it is attempting to imitate. What results is a community of black churches unable to provide the proper example for those outside the Christian community and not strong enough to provide the necessary guidance for those within their own ranks.

     It may be said this is a too simplistic view of the state of affairs. I would admit a simplicity, based not upon bias, but which stems from the fact brevity is essential in an article of this type.

     The view I am expressing is not merely my own. It is one I have found to be held by many but expressed by few. It is becoming increasingly harder for older members in the black churches to hold the interest of even their own offspring. Many of the young are leaving the church and going elsewhere to join movements and organizations to which they feel they can give their wholehearted support and devotion. Many are searching for a cause, but a cause which is "theirs" and not one handed down to them. Somehow they are not able to identify with what their parents find adequate for identification. They are either not impressed with what is going on in the church, or, as I see it, they are not getting a dose of pure unadulterated, simple, non-denominational religion of Jesus. What they are getting is a secondhand view of what is involved in being a disciple of Christ. Many black churches are simply "carbon" copies of their white counterparts.

     Anytime that anyone, in attempting to be a disciple, sets up for his example some group or person other than Jesus, what he becomes is not exactly what Jesus intended. And this binders him from reaching his fullest potential as a follower of Him. For one to have a true and meaningful relationship to Jesus it must be one that is peculiarly his own. His religious expression should come from his own heart. He cannot go back to the so-called fathers in the movement and expect to find his own personal relationship. One must go all the way back to the documents left by Paul and others to find a basis for faith. "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the faith and correcting error, for re-setting the direction of a man's life and training him in good living. The scriptures are the comprehensive equipment of the man of God, and fit him fully for all branches of his work."

     This is not to say the black churches should make it their aim to attempt to refrain from imitating their white brothers. But if both are sincere in what they

[Page 123]

say they are doing, they will necessarily arrive at nearly the same place with nearly the same rules and modes of behavior. They both claim to be imitating the new testament way of doing things. They both have the same guide, the new testament documents. They both have the same degree of inherent intelligence. Is there, then, even a possibility of there being radical differences? Certainly not, if they both have the new testament as their only source of authority.

     The black churches do not have to imitate any pre-existing bodies or institutions. They have only to imitate Jesus and the example He left for us, and the example of the first Christians. That is the way it should be. And that is the only way for the black restoration churches to be meaningful to those in the black community and to serve the needs of their young. The young and those outside are searching. They are searching for, and are in dire need of a movement they can feel is "theirs." They are searching for something that is meaningful to them, and they can determine the difference between the real and the meaningless.

     They know when the God we serve is our God. They know when the songs we sing are our songs, that originate and spring from the heart. They can tell when we have arrived at the point when we can truly say the relationship we claim as ours is truly our own. Many times they lose interest because they simply cannot copy as well as we can. All they may really need is to see us practicing what we profess to be practicing--new testament discipleship. That is, practicing in a way that is directed by scripture and not by any existing groups or the traditions which they may hold. Just the inspired scriptures-- nothing more, nothing less!

     Editor's Note: If you would like to write Carl Sullivan about the above you may address him at 2448 Tori Drive, #12, Memphis, Tennessee 38114.