Early Church Splits & Union - The Bible Only?

A Perspective on the Restoration Movement

The church of God is complex. These days we use the term “It’s complicated!”. Throughout church history the church has gone through many cycles. One such cycle was the Restoration Movement. According to James North (2) “The church has constantly gone through cycles of revival in order to cast off some of the accretions that have built up around the structure of the church”. Throughout the process, we find people leading the charge with a variety of opinions, many rallying the cause under a variety of titles such as Liberals, Conservatives, Fundamentalist, Disciples of Christ and even, “Christians”.

“Probably the most significant of the reviving and cleansing movements was the Protestant Reformation” (North, 2). The Movement took place in the Americas around the year 1800 and its goal “was to restore the church to the ideals of the New Testament” (ibid, 6). These ideals were built upon the twin pillars of (1) The Unity of all Believers, and (2) The use of the Bible as the only authority for the Faith and Practice of Christians. This platform was very attractive, considering the state of the church at the onset of the movement. There were sectarian divisions, splits over doctrine, objections to the use of musical instruments, creeds and church polity. One thing was sure, the Reformation Movement was very appealing in that it was a breath of fresh air for the church in general and the community of unbelievers who had to endure constant scandals, fights and splits over these issues. “The existence and competition of rival denominations was a stumbling block to the smooth progress of the Gospel. Therefore, removing the stumbling block was to be the goal of the Movement” (ibid, 7).

The strategy was brilliant.

 I will go as far as say “It was a God thing”. It was time, and God wished to get his church organized. The climate was such that immigrants were coming into the United States with their own religious beliefs and practices (imported religion) and this too was having an effect upon the church. No doubt there’d be a mixing and diluting of worldviews.  To keep people faithful and grounded, Creeds were used, example The Westminster Confession for the Presbyterians; The Augsburg Confession for the Lutherans and the Philadelphia Confession for the Baptists. But this was also a time when Americans felt freedom to pursue their own goals -  America being a democratic society.

In comes the Restoration Movement – set to restore the original standard, which is the New Testament church. For one thing, the fathers of the movement believed that it was God’s will that “They may all be one” (John 17:21). To achieve this, there had to be a rallying cry, and that cry was the twin pillars of unity and biblical orthodoxy mentioned earlier. The Movement “put much emphasis on the restoration of the Apostolic Church and the idealization of early Christianity” (ibid, 9). Hence the adoption of strategies geared to achieve these goals.

The Stone Movement set as its goal, actions to achieve “Christian union upon the basis of Scriptures” (ibid, 33). Stone was adamant that the way to go was not creeds as a test of fellowship, but rather  with three basic ideas (1) Christian unity, (2) Exclusive Biblical Authority, (3) Local congregational Autonomy (Ibid, 55).

Scriptures. He thought creeds conflicted with the Bible. As he grew in his faith, Stone became “committed to the Bible alone as his authority, and his sourcebook for faith and doctrine” (ibid, 45). This became a standard for the movement he led. As time went by, articles were developed that made their philosophies clear

It was decided that if the churches were to be true to the original mandate of the New Testament church, then “they must abandon human inventions, and use the Bible alone as their guide” (ibid, 56).         

                                                                                                                                 

This leads me to the Campbell movement. The strategy was similar. Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell shared similar convictions – The opinions of creeds and confessions were not taught in the Bible (unauthorized by Scripture), and therefore “injurious to the interests of religion” (ibid, 107). This set the stage for a strategy similar to Stone’s, separating from denominations. They declared “No teaching or practice could be made essential unless it was expressly revealed” (ibid, 108). A little later, the Campbells would adhere to the slogan ““Where the Scripture speaks, we speak. Where the Scripture is silent, we are silent” (Stone, 46). This would mean operating only on a “Thus saith the Lord” strategy.

The strategy was successful, as union of the church at large was achieved. With the assistance of men like Walter Scott, the church realized significant growth. On this platform, the Stone’s realized union through revivals across the country, and the merger of many churches. The Campbells realized the goal of unity and maturity by taking advantage of the power of print media and debates, with Alexander Campbell in particular becoming the voice of the Restoration Movement. There was also a clear understanding of the principles of the Movement through the writing of documents such as The Sermon on the Law, The Declaration and Address, The Last Will and Testament and The Springfield Apology. With the church becoming more organized and an increased emphasis on doctrinal purity, the focus shifted to strategies to accomplish the Great Commission mandate to reach the world. We see the founding of Christians schools, and more Christian Newspapers/Magazines. A unified church was on the move, using the power of the pen to “expose, correct and set in order” (ibid, 132).

When Walter Scott arrived on the scene, his background in education (I’ll say a spiritual gift to teach), took organizing evangelism to yet another level. Scott became a contributor to a set of writings called “Divinely Authorized Plan of Preaching The Christian Religion” (Lecture, Koffarnus). Walter Scott, made things a bit more simple by coining the approach “The Plan of Salvation”, using the “Five Finger Exercise”. He “discovered the simple truth of the scriptures that was void of the “mystical experience” (Koffarnus, Lecture).  Through this approach, modeled by countless others, the church experienced explosive growth. Before long, both the Stone movement and the Campbell movement united across the country, beginning with a series of Unity Meetings in 1831. Hence the formations of the Disciples of Christ Churches and the Christian Churches. By the 1820’s “the Stone Movement continued to expand, coming in contact with the  Smith-Jones of the east” (growing to about 15,000 members), while the Campbell Movement increased by the thousands (but not before taking more Baptists with them) (North, 155).

They united on the principles of the two pillars – unity and biblical orthodoxy. Yet, it was not long before the union became challenged. It seems that when we achieve peace we need something else to fight about. The good news is that even though the movement shared their differences, the passion for unity was enough to overcome their differences. Though, like a snake in the grass, these differences lurked for the opportune time for exposure.

                                                                                                                                                                   

By the 1830’s the Movement continued to see significant growth. It was becoming a standard among the churches which united to seek to be “governed by the word of God rather than the traditional articles of Faith” (North, 189). A little later in the decade, we would see signs of a breaking apart – Mormonism took its toll; so too the doctrine of reimmersion. Dr. John Thomas played a key role here (1835). Another thorn in the Movement’s side was the rise of “Opinionism”. Campbell had to use his

platform to encourage that “opinions remain in the realm of speculation”, declaring “It is not the right of any one citizen of Christ’s kingdom to propagate any opinion whatever, either in the public assembly or in private” (ibid, 195). Campbell stressed that “Teaching that went beyond the foundation of Biblical revelation was a threat to the Christian Community” (ibid, 195). What we see happening later is “the inclusiveness of unity and the exclusiveness of biblical authority creating tensions within the Movement” (ibid, 198).

As the church continued to grow, the need for organization saw a move towards  avenues of outreach which included “organizations developing beyond the level of the local congregations” (ibid, 202). This problem conflicted with the early goal of congregational autonomy. “The early church had a consistent and pervasive fear of ecclesiastical structure”, but now the unified church saw the “endorsing of new agencies as a crisis of conscience” (ibid, 205). People were becoming concerned that leaders like Campbell were betraying the early principles. Campbell had “evolved”, believing “we are to use any means to reform the world” (ibid, 202). This hardline on adhering only to the “Thus saith” (where the Bible speaks) by traditionalists was becoming an issue. The great struggle was dealing with the silent portions of the Bible. Campbell “insisted that co-operation among Christian churches in all affairs of the common salvation, is itself the essence of the Christian institution” (ibid, 204). The return of “extra – congregational organizations” (North, 204) was increasing becoming an issue. Other factors to cause disunion:

ü  Attitudes toward the American Civil War

ü  Evangelical Alliances

ü  Missionary Societies

ü  Associations and Conventions

ü  Fulltime Salaried Ministers

ü  Innovations ( anything new became suspicious)

ü  Use of Instruments in church

ü  The Liberal Takeover

As the Movement developed, I believe that unity was sought at the expense of biblical authority. The incursion of the liberals did not help. In fact, the liberal divide may have been the nail in the coffin.       “A major milestone in the break up of the union was the events of 1889 called the Sand Creek Address” (ibid, 250). It stated, “Nothing should be taught, received or practiced, religiously, for which we could not produce a “Thus saith the Lord” (ibid, 250). By 1895, there were countless disputes, legal battles over church property, factions and divisions. In effect, the Movement broke down.

In summary, the goal of the Movement was to unite brethren through the restoration of the Bible alone as the standard guide for faith and practice, based on the twin pillars. However, over time “the rigid application of biblical authority insisted by the faithful” (ibid, 252) did not resonate with this new generation. “Both sides agreed on biblical authority; however, they disagreed on application on areas of biblical silence which is the impact of strict versus loose constructionism” (ibid, 252). I will agree with North, that “our attitudes towards the authority of the Scriptures” influence the way we live with each other (ibid, 252). The very pillars that united them at the beginning, served as roadblocks that led to the breaking up of the Restoration Movement.

References:

North, J. Union In Truth. United States of America: The Standard Publishing Company (1994)

Koffarnus, R. Central Christian College of The Bible. Unit 4 Lectures. Retrieved from: https://cccb.instructure.com/courses/375/modules/items/26514

GoogleImages.

Written by Pastor Kevin A. Hall (03.04.18)