The Restoration Movement (also known as the American Restoration Movement or the Stone-Campbell Movement) is a Christian movement that began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. The movement sought to restore the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."[1]:54 They do not consider themselves to be Protestants.[2][3][4]:213
The Restoration Movement developed from several independent efforts to return to apostolic Christianity, but two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important to the development of the movement.[5]:27-32 The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky and called themselves simply "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell; they used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake.
Among other things, they were united in the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that Christians should celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first day of each week; and that baptism of adult believers by immersion in water is a necessary condition for salvation. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus.[6]:27 Both groups promoted a return to the purposes of the 1st-century churches as described in the New Testament.
The Restoration Movement has since divided into multiple separate groups. There are three main branches in the U.S.: the Churches of Christ, the Christian churches and churches of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Some see divisions in the movement as the result of the tension between the goals of restoration and ecumenism, with the Churches of Christ and Christian churches and churches of Christ resolving the tension by stressing restoration, while the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) resolved the tension by stressing ecumenism.[7]:383 A number of groups outside the U.S. also have historical associations with this movement, such as the Evangelical Christian Church in Canada,[8][9] and the Churches of Christ in Australia.
During the late Middle Ages, some early dissenters such as John Wycliff and John Huss called for a restoration of a primitive form of Christianity, but they were driven underground. As a result, some scholars believe it is difficult to find any direct links between such early dissenters and the restoration movement.[10]:13
Beginning with the Renaissance period, intellectual roots become easier to discern.[10]:11 At the heart of the Reformation was an emphasis on the principle of "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura).[10]:22-23 This, along with the related insistence on the right of individuals to read and interpret the Bible for themselves and a movement to reduce ritual, formed part of the intellectual background of early Restoration Movement leaders.[10]:32-33 The branch of the Reformation movement represented by Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin also contributed an emphasis on "restoring biblical forms and patterns."[10]:33
The rationalism of John Locke provided another influence.[10]:78 Reacting to the deism of Lord Herbert, Locke sought a way to address religious division and persecution without abandoning Scripture.[10]:78 To do this, Locke argued against the right of government to enforce religious orthodoxy and turned to the Bible to supply a set of beliefs that all Christians could agree upon.[10]:78-79 The core teachings which he viewed as essential were the messiahship of Jesus and Jesus' direct commands.[10]:78-79 Christians could be devoutly committed to other Biblical teachings but, in Locke's view, they were non-essentials over which Christians should never fight or try to coerce each other.[10]:79 Unlike the Puritans and the later Restoration Movement, Locke did not call for a systematic restoration of the early church.[10]:79
One of the basic goals of the English Puritans was to restore a pure, "primitive" church that would be a true apostolic community.[10]:40,41 This conception was a critical influence in the development of the Puritans in Colonial America.[10]:50-56
During the First Great Awakening, a movement developed among those Baptists known as Separate Baptists. Two themes of this movement were the rejection of creeds and "freedom in the Spirit."[10]:65 The Separate Baptists saw Scripture as the "perfect rule" for the church.[10]:66 However, while they turned to the Bible for a structural pattern for the church, they did not insist on complete agreement on the details of that pattern.[10]:67 This group originated in New England, but was especially strong in the South where the emphasis on a biblical pattern for the church grew stronger.[10]:67 In the last half of the 18th century, Separate Baptists became more numerous on the western frontier of Kentucky and Tennessee, where the Stone and Campbell movements would later take root.[10]:68 The development of the Separate Baptists in the southern frontier helped prepare the ground for the Restoration Movement. The membership of both the Stone and Campbell groups drew heavily from among the ranks of the Separate Baptists.[10]:67
Separate Baptist restorationism also contributed to the development of the Landmark Baptists in the same area as the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement at about the same time. Under the leadership of James Robinson Graves, this group looked for a precise blueprint for the primitive church, believing that any deviation from that blueprint would keep one from being part of the true church.[10]:68
The ideal of restoring a "primitive" form of Christianity grew in popularity in the U.S. after the American Revolution.[10]:89-94 This desire to restore a purer form of Christianity played a role in the development of many groups during this period, known as the Second Great Awakening, including the Mormons, Baptists and Shakers.[10]:89 The Restoration Movement began during, and was greatly influenced by, this second Awakening.[11]:368 While the Campbells resisted what they saw as the spiritual manipulation of the camp meetings, the Southern phase of the Awakening "was an important matrix of Barton Stone's reform movement" and shaped the evangelistic techniques used by both Stone and the Campbells.[11]:368
James O'Kelly was an early advocate of seeking unity through a return to New Testament Christianity.[12]:216 In 1792, dissatisfied with the role of bishops in the Methodist Episcopal Church, he separated from that body. O'Kelly's movement, centering in Virginia and North Carolina, was originally called Republican Methodists. In 1794 they adopted the name Christian Church.[13]
During the same period, Elias Smith of Vermont and Abner Jones of New Hampshire led a movement espousing views similar to those of O’Kelly.[10]:68[14]:190 They believed that members could, by looking to scripture alone, simply be Christians without being bound to human traditions and the denominations that had been brought over from Europe.[10]:68[14]:190
Barton W. Stone was born to John and Mary Stone in 1772 in Port Tobacco, Maryland. During his childhood, the boy grew up within the Church of England, then had Baptist, Methodist and Episcopal church influences as well. Preachers representing Baptists and Methodists came to the area during the Second Great Awakening, and Baptist and Methodist chapels were founded in the county.
Barton entered the Guilford Academy in North Carolina in 1790.[7]:71 While there, Stone heard James McGready (a Presbyterian minister) speak.[7]:72 A few years later, he became a Presbyterian minister.[7]:72 But, as Stone looked more deeply into the beliefs of the Presbyterians, especially the Westminster Confession of Faith, he doubted that some of the church beliefs were truly Bible-based.[7]:72,73 He was unable to accept the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election and predestination.[7]:72,73 He also believed that "Calvinism's alleged theological sophistication had . . . been bought at the price of fomenting division" and "blamed it . . . for producing ten different sects within the Presbyterian tradition alone."[15]:110
In 1801, the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky planted the seed for a movement in Kentucky and the Ohio River valley to disassociate from denominationalism. In 1803 Stone and others withdrew from the Kentucky Presbytery and formed the Springfield Presbytery. The defining event of the Stone wing of the movement was the publication of Last Will and Testament of The Springfield Presbytery, at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, in 1804. The Last Will is a brief document in which Stone and five others announced their withdrawal from Presbyterianism and their intention to be solely part of the body of Christ.[16] The writers appealed for the unity of all who follow Jesus, suggested the value of congregational self-governance, and lifted the Bible as the source for understanding the will of God. They denounced the divisive use of the Augsburg Confession,[6]:79 and adopted the name "Christian" to identify their group.[6]:80
Elias Smith had heard of the Stone movement by 1804, and the O'Kelly movement by 1808.[14]:190 The three groups merged by 1810.[14]:190 At that time the combined movement had a membership of approximately 20,000.[14]:190 This loose fellowship of churches was called by the names "Christian Connection/Connexion" or "Christian Church."[10]:68[14]:190
The cornerstone for the Stone movement was Christian freedom, which led them to a rejection of all the historical creeds, traditions and theological systems that had developed over time and a focus on a primitive Christianity based on the Bible.[10]:104,105
While restoring primitive Christianity was central to the Stone movement, they saw restoring the lifestyle of the early church as essential, and during the early years "focused more . . . on holy and righteous living than on the forms and structures of the early church.[10]:103 The group did also seek to restore the primitive church.[10]:104 However, due to concern that emphasizing particular practices could undermine Christian freedom, this effort tended to take the form of rejecting tradition rather than an explicit program of reconstructing New Testament practices.[10]:104 The emphasis on freedom was strong enough that the movement avoided developing any ecclesiastical traditions, resulting in a movement that was "largely without dogma, form, or structure."[10]:104,105 What held "the movement together was a commitment to primitive Christianity."[10]:105
Another theme was that of hastening the millennium.[10]:104 Many Americans of the period believed that the millennium was near and based their hopes for the millennium on their new nation, the United States.[10]:104 Members of the Stone movement believed that only a unified Christianity based on the apostolic church, rather than a country or any of the existing denominations, could lead to the coming of the millennium.[10]:104 Stone's millennialism has been described as more "apocalyptic" than that of Alexander Campbell, in that he believed people were too flawed to usher in a millennial age through human progress.[17]:6,7 Rather, he believed that it depended on the power of God, and that while waiting for God to establish His kingdom, one should live as if the rule of God were already fully established.[17]:6
For the Stone movement, this had less to do with eschatological theories and more about a countercultural commitment to live as if the kingdom of God were already established on earth.[17]:6,7 This apocalyptic perspective or world view led many in the Stone movement to adopt pacifism, avoid participating in civil government, and reject violence, militarism, greed, materialism and slavery.[17]:6
The Campbell wing of the movement was launched when Thomas Campbell published the Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington in 1809. The Presbyterian Synod had suspended his ministerial credentials. In The Declaration and Address he set forth some of his convictions about the church of Jesus Christ, as he organized the Christian Association of Washington, in Washington County, Pennsylvania, not as a church but as an association of persons seeking to grow in faith.[6]:108-111 On May 4, 1811, the Christian Association constituted itself as a congregationally governed church. With the building it constructed at Brush Run, Pennsylvania, it became known as Brush Run Church.[6]:117 When their study of the New Testament led the reformers to begin to practice baptism by immersion, the nearby Redstone Baptist Association invited Brush Run Church to join with them for the purpose of fellowship. The reformers agreed, provided that they would be "allowed to preach and to teach whatever they learned from the Scriptures."[18]:86
Thomas' son Alexander immigrated to the US to join him in 1809, and before long assumed the leading role in the movement.[10]:106
The Campbells worked within the Redstone Baptist Association during the period 1815 through 1824. While both the Campbells and the Baptists shared practices of baptism by immersion and congregational polity, it was soon clear that he and his associates were not traditional Baptists. Within the Redstone Association, some of the Baptist leaders considered the differences intolerable when Alexander Campbell began publishing a journal, The Christian Baptist, which promoted reform. Campbell anticipated the conflict and moved his membership to a congregation of the Mahoning Baptist Association in 1824.[6]:131
Alexander used The Christian Baptist to address what he saw as the key issue of reconstructing the apostolic Christian community in a systematic and rational manner.[10]:106 He wanted to clearly distinguish between essential and non-essential aspects of primitive Christianity.[10]:106 Among what he identified as essential were "congregational autonomy, a plurality of elders in each congregation, weekly communion and immersion for the remission of sins."[10]:106 Among practices he rejected as non-essential were "the holy kiss, deaconesses, communal living, footwashing and charismatic exercises."[10]:106
In 1827, the Mahoning Association appointed Walter Scott as an evangelist. Through Scott’s efforts, the Mahoning Association grew rapidly. In 1828, Thomas Campbell visited several of the congregations formed by Scott and heard him preach. Campbell believed that Scott was bringing an important new dimension to the movement with his approach to evangelism.[6]:132-133
Several Baptist associations began disassociating congregations that refused to subscribe to the Philadelphia Confession.[19] The Mahoning Association came under attack. In 1830, The Mahoning Baptist Association disbanded. The younger Campbell ceased publication of the Christian Baptist. In January 1831, he began publication of the Millennial Harbinger.[6]:144-145
The Age of Enlightenment had a significant influence on the Campbell movement.[10]:80-86 Thomas Campbell was a student of the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke.[10]:82 While he did not explicitly use the term "essentials," in the Declaration and Address, Campbell proposed the same solution to religious division as had been advanced earlier by Herbert and Locke: "[R]educe religion to a set of essentials upon which all reasonable persons might agree."[10]:80 The essentials he identified were those practices for which the Bible provided "a 'Thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms or by approved precedent."[10]:81 Unlike Locke, who saw the earlier efforts by Puritans as inherently divisive, Campbell argued for "a complete restoration of apostolic Christianity."[10]:82 Thomas believed that creeds served to divide Christians. He also believed that the Bible was clear enough that anyone could understand it and, thus, creeds were unnecessary.[20]:114
Alexander Campbell was also deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinking, in particular the Scottish School of Common Sense of Thomas Reid and Dugald Stewart.[10]:84 This group saw the Bible as providing concrete facts rather than abstract truths, and advocated a scientific or Baconian approach to interpreting the Bible that would begin with those facts, arrange the ones applicable to a given topic, and then use them to draw conclusions.[10]:84 Alexander Campbell reflected this approach, when arguing that "the Bible is a book of facts, not of opinions, theories, abstract generalities, nor of verbal definitions."[10]:84 He believed that if Christians would limit themselves to the facts found in the Bible, they would necessarily come to agreement. He saw those facts as providing a blueprint or constitution for the church.[10]:84,85
Thomas Campbell combined the Enlightenment approach to unity with the Reformed and Puritan traditions of restoration.[10]:82,106 The Enlightenment affected the Campbell movement in two ways. First, it provided the idea that Christian unity could be achieved by finding a set of essentials that all reasonable people could agree on. The second was the concept of a rational faith that was formulated and defended on the basis of a set of facts derived from the Bible.[10]:85,86 Campbell's solution for achieving Christian unity combined forsaking the creeds and traditions that had divided Christians with a recovery of the primitive Christianity, found in scripture, that was the common denominator for all Christians.[10]:106
Alexander Campbell's millennialism was more optimistic than Stone's.[17]:6 He had more confidence in the potential for human progress and believed that Christians could unite to transform the world and initiate a millennial age.[17]:6 Campbell's conceptions were postmillennial, as he anticipated that the progress of the church and society would lead to an age of peace and righteousness before the return of Christ.[17]:6 This optimistic approach meant that, in addition to his commitment to primitivism, he had a progressive strand in his thinking.[17]:7
The Campbell movement was characterized by a "systematic and rational reconstruction" of the early church, in contrast to the Stone movement which was characterized by radical freedom and lack of dogma.[10]:106-108 Despite their differences, the two movements agreed on several critical issues.[10]:108 Both saw restoring apostolic Christianity as a means of hastening the millennium.[10]:108 Both also saw restoring the early church as a route to Christian freedom.[10]:108 And, both believed that unity among Christians could be achieved by using apostolic Christianity as a model.[10]:108 The commitment of both movements to restoring the early church and to uniting Christians was enough to motivate a union between many in the two movements.[17]:8,9
The Stone and Campbell movements merged in 1832.[5]:28[18]:116-120[21]:212[22]:xxi[23]:xxxvii This was formalized at the High Street Meeting House in Lexington, Kentucky with a handshake between Barton W. Stone and "Raccoon" John Smith.[18]:116-120 Smith had been chosen, by those present, to speak in behalf of the followers of the Campbells.[18]:116 A preliminary meeting of the two groups was held in late December 1831, culminating with the merger on January 1, 1832.[18]:116-120[23]:xxxvii
Two representatives of those assembled were appointed to carry the news of the union to all the churches: John Rogers, for the Christians and "Raccoon" John Smith for the reformers. Despite some challenges, the merger succeeded.[6]:153-154 Many believed the union held great promise for the future success of the combined movement, and greeted the news enthusiastically.[17]:9
With the merger, there was the challenge of what to call the new movement. Clearly, finding a Biblical, non-sectarian name was important. Stone wanted to continue to use the name "Christians." Alexander Campbell insisted upon "Disciples of Christ". As a result, both names were used.[6]:27-28[24]:125 The confusion over names has been present ever since.[6]:27-28
From the beginning of the movement, the free exchange of ideas among the people was fostered by the journals published by its leaders. Alexander Campbell published The Christian Baptist and The Millennial Harbinger. Stone published The Christian Messenger.[21]:208. In a respectful way, both men routinely published the contributions of others whose positions were radically different from their own.
Following Campbell’s death in 1866, journals continued to keep the discussion and conversation alive. Between 1870 and 1900, two journals emerged as the most prominent. The Christian Standard was edited and published by Isaac Errett of Cincinnati. The Christian Evangelist was edited and published by J. H. Garrison from St. Louis. The two men enjoyed a friendly rivalry, and kept the dialog going within the movement.[21]:364
In 1855 the Gospel Advocate, emanating from Nashville, began publication under the editorship of Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb. Suspended by the American Civil War in 1861, the Gospel Advocate re-emerged in 1866 under the editorship of Tolbert Fanning together with William Lipscomb's younger brother, David Lipscomb. In the segueing decades the Gospel Advocate consistently opposed missionary societies and instrumental music in worship as innovations incompatible with the original Stone-Campbell objective of restoring the New Testament character of the church. Just prior to a religious census of the United States in 1906, David Lipscomb, who earlier had opposed segmenting the Stone-Campbell Movement, indicated to the United States Census Bureau that the differences among the congregations over the two aforementioned innovations had become so widely acknowledged that the census should enumerate the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ separately, the latter group having become identified with the Gospel Advocate.[25]
A fourth journal became part of the conversation with the publication in 1884 of The Christian Oracle, later to become The Christian Century, with an interdenominational appeal.[21]:364 In 1914, Garrison’s Christian Publishing company was purchased by R. A. Long, who then established a non-profit corporation, “The Christian Board of Publication” as the Brotherhood publishing house.[21]:426
When Stone and Alexander Campbell's Reformers (also known as Disciples and Christian Baptists) united in 1832, only a minority of Christians from the Smith/Jones and O'Kelly movements participated.[14]:190 Those that did were from congregations west of the Appalachian Mountains that had come into contact with the Stone movement.[14]:190 The eastern members had several key differences with the Stone and Campbell group: an emphasis on conversion experience, quarterly observance of communion, and nontrinitarianism.[14]:190 Those who did not unite with Campbell merged with the Congregational Churches in 1931 to form the Congregational Christian Churches.[14]:191 In 1957, the Congregational Christian Church merged with the Evangelical and Reformed Church to become the United Church of Christ.[14]:191
In 1849, the first National Convention was held at Cincinnati, Ohio.[21]:245 Alexander Campbell had concerns that holding conventions would lead the movement into divisive denominationalism. He did not attend the gathering.[21]:245 Among its actions, the convention elected Alexander Campbell its President and created The American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS).[21]:247 By the end of the century, The Foreign Christian Missionary Society and the Christian Women's Board of Missions were also engaged in missionary activities. Forming the ACMS clearly did not reflect a consensus of the entire movement, and these para-church organizations became a divisive issue. In the succeeding decades, for some congregations and their leaders, co-operative work through missionary societies and the adoption of instrumental music was straying too far. Division over these issues grew after the American Civil War.
The use of musical instruments in worship was discussed in journal articles as early as 1849, though initial reactions were generally unfavorable.[26]:414 However, some congregations are known to have been using musical instruments in the 1850s and 1860s.[26]:414 Both acceptance of instruments and discussion of the issue grew after the American Civil War.[26]:414 Opponents argued that the New Testament provided no authorization for their use in worship, while supporters argued on the basis of expediency and Christian liberty.[26]:414 Affluent, urban congregations were more likely to adopt musical instruments, while poorer and more rural congregations tended to see them as "an accommodation to the ways of the world."[26]:414
The early 19th century Restoration Movement also encompassed very different views concerning the role of clergy: the Campbell branch was strongly anti-clergy, believing there was no justification for a clergy/lay distinction, while the Stone branch had a higher view of clergy, believing that only an ordained minister could officiate at communion.[27]
The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement notes that Restoration Movement historians have tended to interpret the controversy over the use of musical instruments in worship in ways that "reflect their own attitudes on the issue."[26]:414 Examples are given of historians from different branches of the movement interpreting it in relation to the statements of early Restoration Movement leaders, in terms of social and cultural factors, differing approaches to interpreting scripture, differing approaches to the authority of scripture, and "ecumenical progressivism" versus "sectarian primitivism."[26]:414, 415
| “ | Nothing in life has given me more pain in heart than the separation from those I have heretofore worked with and loved | ” |
|
— David Lipscomb, 1899[28]
|
One issue that created tension in the movement was whether the brotherhood should adopt organizational structures, such as missionary societies and conventions, above the local congregational level. On October 23, 1849, a group of individuals met in Cincinnati, Ohio with the intention of creating a "general church organization for the furtherance of the work by the church collectively." This action caused immediate disagreements among the churches, because such organizations had previously been abolished. Barton W. Stone himself had in fact taken part in the abolition of the Springfield Presbytery, and authored at that time a very influential document, The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, which contained within it the idea that the existence of all such bodies was necessarily divisive and hence sinful.
About a decade later, L. L. Pinkerton, who was a member of the Midway, Kentucky church brought a melodeon into the church building.[26]:414[29]:95,96 The poor quality of the congregation's singing had the minister at his "breaking point."[29]:96 The instrument was first used for singing practices held on Saturday night, but was soon used during the worship on Sunday.[29]:96 One of the elders of that assembly removed the first melodeon, but it was soon replaced by another.[29]:96 Generally speaking, the bulk of the urban congregations, particularly in the Northern states, were not totally averse to this development, which was also gaining momentum in the other religious groups around them, while rural congregations, particularly in the Southern United States, tended to oppose this trend.
As the 19th century progressed, a division gradually developed between those whose primary commitment was to unity, and those whose primary commitment was to the restoration of the primitive church.[17]:5,6 Those whose primary focus was unity gradually took on "an explicitly ecumenical agenda" and "sloughed off the restorationist vision."[17]:6 This group increasingly used the terms "Disciples of Christ" and "Christian Churches" rather than "Churches of Christ."[17]:6 At the same time, those whose primary focus was restoration of the primitive church increasingly used the term "Churches of Christ" rather than "Disciples of Christ."[17]:6
The rise of women leaders in the temperance[30]:728-729 and missionary movements also played an important role in separating the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. In the Christian Churches, many women spoke in public on behalf of the new Christian Woman's Board of Mission (CWBM) and Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). In contrast, the Churches of Christ largely discouraged women from speaking in public and joining activist women's organizations such as the WCTU.[31]:292-316 The Erie (IL) Christian Church ordained Clara Celestia Hale Babcock as the first known woman Disciple preacher in 1889.[32]:47-60
In 1906, the U.S. Religious Census listed the Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ as separate and distinct groups for the first time.[6]:251 This, however, was simply the recognition of a division that had been growing for years, with published reports as early as 1883.[6]:252 The most obvious distinction between the two groups was the rejection of musical instruments in the Churches of Christ. The controversy over musical instruments began in 1860 with the introduction of organs in some churches. More basic were differences in the underlying approach to Biblical interpretation. For the Churches of Christ, any practices not present in accounts of New Testament worship were not permissible in the church, and they could find no New Testament documentation of the use of instrumental music in worship. For the Christian Churches, any practices not expressly forbidden could be considered.[6]:242-247
After the division Disciples churches used "Christian Church" as the dominant designation for congregations. While music and the approach to missionary work were the most visible issues, there were also some deeper ones. The process that led to the separation had begun prior to the American Civil War.[33]:17-18
After the split the Churches of Christ generally became more congregational, while the Disciples of Christ became more denominational. The Churches of Christ remained more literal in biblical interpretation, while the Disciples of Christ became closer to mainline Protestant groups. In fact, Disciples of Christ have been very cooperative with other Protestant denominations, dismissing the exclusive quality what was once a part of the entire movement. Churches of Christ have maintained a more exclusive stance, although the lack of a "clearinghouse" for determining acceptable doctrine has led to myriad manifestations that the movement may credit as heresy.
Generally speaking, the Disciples of Christ tended to be predominately urban and Northern, while the Churches of Christ were predominately rural and Southern. The Disciples favored college-educated clergy, while the Churches of Christ discouraged formal theological education because they opposed the creation of a professional clergy. Disciples congregations tended to be wealthier and constructed larger, more expensive church buildings; Churches of Christ built more modest structures, and criticized the wearing of expensive clothing in worship.[27]:109 One commentator has described the Disciples "ideal" as reflecting the "businessman" and the Church of Christ "ideal" as reflecting "the simple and austere yeoman farmer."[27]:109
The Disciples of Christ today are still not totally devoid of the conservative-liberal tension. A movement of conservative congregations and individuals among the Disciples formed the "Disciple Renewal" in 1985.[34]:p.272 They were motivated by concern about what they perceived as increasingly liberal views among the Disciples fellowship on issues such as the lordship of Christ, the authority of the Bible and homosexuality.[34]:p.272 In the wake of the rejection in 1985 by the Disciples General Assembly of a resolution on the inspiration of scripture, the Disciple Renewal planned to encourage renewal of the fellowship from within through a journal that was also entitled Disciple Renewal.[34]:p.272 There was also a concern that the Disciples had abandoned the fundamental principles of the Restoration Movement.[34]:p.272 The Disciple Heritage Fellowship (website) was established in 1995. It is a fellowship of autonomous congregations, about half of which are formally associated with the Disciples of Christ.[34]:p.272 As of 2002 the Disciples Heritage Fellowship included 60 congregations and 100 "supporting" churches.[34]:p.272 It is closely related to the Confessing Movement found in several other mainline denominations.
Some see divisions in the movement as the result of the tension between the goals of restoration and ecumenism, with the churches of Christ and Christian churches and churches of Christ resolving the tension by stressing restoration while the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) resolved the tension by stressing ecumenism.[4]:p.210[7]:p.383
Following the 1906 separation of the Churches of Christ (a cappella), controversy still existed within the movement over whether the missionary efforts should be cooperative or independently sponsored by congregations. Questions on the role of the methods of Biblical Criticism to the study and interpretation of the Bible were also among the issues in conflict.[21]:418-420 By the 1920s the question of "open membership," or "admission of the pious unimmersed to membership" had arisen as an additional source of tension.[35]:182[36]:63
During the first half of the 20th century the opposing factions among the Christian Churches coexisted, but with discomfort. The three Missionary Societies were merged into the United Christian Missionary Society in 1920.[21]:428,429 Human service ministries grew through the National Benevolent Association providing assistance to orphans, the elderly and the disabled. By mid century, the cooperative Christian Churches and the independent Christian Churches were following different paths.
By 1926 a split began to form within the Disciples over the future direction of the church. Conservatives within the group began to have problems with the perceived liberalism of the leadership, upon the same grounds described earlier in the accepting of instrumental music in worship. In 1927 they held the first North American Christian Convention, and the Christian churches and churches of Christ began to emerge as a distinct group from the Disciples, although the break was not totally formalized until the late 1960s. By this time the decennial religious census was a thing of the past and it is impossible to use it as a delineation as it was in 1906.
Following World War II, it was believed that the organizations that had been developed in previous decades no longer effectively met the needs of the postwar era.[6]:419 After a number discussions throughout the 1950s, the 1960 International Convention of Christian Churches adopted a process to plan the "restructure" of the entire organization.[6]:421 The Commission on Restructure, chaired by Granville T. Walker, held its first meeting October 30 & November 1, 1962.[6]:436-437 In 1968, at the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), those Christian Churches that favored cooperative mission work adopted a new "provisional design" for their work together, becoming the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).[7]:495 Those congregations that chose not to be associated with the new denominational organization went their own way as the Christian churches and churches of Christ, completing a separation that had begun decades before.[7]:407-409
In 1968, the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) adopted the Commission's proposed “Provisional Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).”[6]:442-443 The restructuring was implemented in 1969 by the first General Assembly, and the name officially changed to the "Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)".[37]:645 This restructuring has been described as an "overt recognition of the body's denominational status,"[38]:268 and the modern Disciples have been described as "a Reformed North American Mainstream Moderate Denomination."[39]
Under the Design, all churches in the 1968 yearbook of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) were automatically recognized as part of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). In the years that followed, many of the Independent Christian Church Congregations requested formal withdrawal from the yearbook. Many of those congregations became part of the Christian churches and churches of Christ.
Independent Christian churches and churches of Christ have both organizational and hermeneutic differences with the churches of Christ.[4]:186 For example, they have a loosely organized convention, and they view scriptural silence on an issue more permissively.[4]:186 Nonetheless, they are much more closely related to the churches of Christ in their theology and ecclesiology than they are with the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ).[4]:186
The development of the Christian churches and churches of Christ as a separately identifiable religious body from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DoC) was a lengthy process.[40]:185 The roots of the separation can be found in the polarization resulting from three major controversies that arose during the early 20th century.[40]:185 One, which was a source of division in other religious groups, was "the theological development of modernism and liberalism."[40]:185 The early stages of the ecumenical movement, which led in 1908 to the Federal Council of Churches, provide a second source of controversy.[40]:185 The third was the practice of open membership, in which individuals who had not been baptized by immersion were granted full membership in the church.[40]:185 Those who supported one of these points of view tended to support the others as well.[40]:185
The Disciples of Christ were, in 1910, a united, growing community with common goals.[41] Support by the United Christian Missionary Society of missionaries who advocated open membership became a source of contention in 1920.[40]:185 Efforts to recall support for these missionaries failed in a 1925 convention in Oklahoma City and a 1926 convention in Memphis, Tennessee.[40]:185 Many congregations withdrew from the missionary society as a result.[40]:185
A new convention, the North American Christian Convention, was organized by the more conservative congregations in 1927.[40]:185 An existing brotherhood journal, the Christian Standard, also served as a source of cohesion for these congregations.[40]:185 By this time the division between liberals and conservatives was well established.[41]
The official separation between the independent Christian churches and churches of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is difficult to date.[7]:407 Suggestions range from 1926 to 1971 based on the events outlined below:
Because of this separation, many independent Christian churches and churches of Christ are not only non-denominational, they can be anti-denominational, avoiding even the appearance or language associated with denominationalism holding true to their Restoration roots.
One of the issues leading to the 1906 separation was the question of organizational structures above the level of the local congregation. Since then, Churches of Christ have maintained an ongoing commitment to church governance that is congregational only, rather than denominational. Churches of Christ purposefully have no central headquarters, councils, or other organizational structure above the local church level.[4]:214[20]:124[42]:238[43][44]:103 Rather, the independent congregations are a network with each congregation participating at its own discretion in various means of service and fellowship with other congregations (see Sponsoring church (Churches of Christ)).[20]:124[45][46][47] Churches of Christ are linked by their shared commitment to restoration principles.[44]:106[45]
Since Churches of Christ are autonomous and purposefully do not maintain an ecclesiastical hierarchy or doctrinal council, it is not unusual to find variations from congregation to congregation. The approach taken to restoring the New Testament church has focused on "methods and procedures" such as church organization, the form of worship, and how the church should function. As a result, most divisions among Churches of Christ have been the result of "methodological" disputes. These are meaningful to members of this movement because of the seriousness with which they take the goal of "restoring the form and structure of the primitive church."[4]:212
Three quarters of the congregations and 87% of the membership are described by The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement as "mainstream", sharing a consensus on practice and theology.[48]:213 The remaining congregations may be grouped into four categories, the largest of which is the churches of Christ (non-institutional). Approximately 2,055 congregations fall in this category.[48]:213[49] The second group does not use separate Bible classes, and consists of approximately 1,100 congregations. A third group does not use multiple communion cups (approximately 550 congregations; this category overlaps somewhat with those congregations that do not use separate Bible classes for children). The fourth group "emphasize[s] mutual edification by various leaders in the churches and oppose[s] one person doing most of the preaching." This group includes roughly 130 congregations.[48]:213[49] These groups generally differ from the mainstream consensus in specific practices, rather than in theological perspectives, and tend to have smaller congregations on average.[48]:213
While there are no official membership statistics for the Churches of Christ, growth appears to have been relatively steady through the 20th century.[17]:4 One source estimates total U.S. membership at 433,714 in 1926, 558,000 in 1936, 682,000 in 1946, 835,000 in 1965 and 1,250,000 in 1994.[17]:4
The International Churches of Christ (ICOC) had their roots in a "discipling" movement that arose among the mainline Churches of Christ during the 1970s.[50]:418 This discipling movement developed in the campus ministry of Chuck Lucas.[50]:418
In 1967, Chuck Lucas was minister of the 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida (later renamed the Crossroads Church of Christ). That year he started a new project known as Campus Advance (based on principles borrowed from the Campus Crusade and the Shepherding Movement). Centered on the University of Florida, the program called for a strong evangelical outreach and an intimate religious atmosphere in the form of soul talks and prayer partners. Soul talks were held in student residences and involved prayer and sharing overseen by a leader who delegated authority over group members. Prayer partners referred to the practice of pairing a new Christian with an older guide for personal assistance and direction. Both procedures led to "in-depth involvement of each member in one another's lives", and critics accused Lucas of fostering cultism.[51]
The Crossroads Movement later spread into some other Churches of Christ. One of Lucas' converts, Kip McKean, moved to the Boston area in 1979 and began working with "would-be disciples" in the Lexington Church of Christ.[50]:418 He asked them to "redefine their commitment to Christ," and introduced the use of discipling partners. The congregation grew rapidly, and was renamed the Boston Church of Christ.[50]:418 In the early 1980s, the focus of the movement moved to Boston, Massachusetts where Kip McKean and the Boston Church of Christ became prominently associated with the trend.
With the national leadership located in Boston, during the 1980s it commonly became known as the "Boston movement."[50]:418 A formal break was made from the mainline Churches of Christ in 1993 with the organization of the International Churches of Christ.[50]:418 This new designation formalized a division that was already in existence between those involved with the Crossroads/Boston Movement and "mainline" Churches of Christ. Much of the outside literature during this period refers to it as the "Boston Movement" or occasionally the "Discipling Movement", after the practice of assigning each new church member a mentor who was to "disciple" the newer member through prayer and advice about a wide range of day-to-day decisions.
In November 2002, the McKeans announced their resignations from their roles as World Mission Evangelist, Women's Ministry Leader and Leader of the World Sector Leaders for the ICOC.[52] What followed was a period of increased sovereignty among local churches, what McKean calls a "reactionary 'new vision' of autonomous congregations, consensus leadership with no lead evangelists, the elimination of structured outreach (Bible Talks) and the elimination of discipleship partners." Many in leadership positions issued public apologies for their participation in authoritative abuses, and some resigned or were asked to leave. By 2004, Boston, Atlanta, and New York had lost over 30% of their members, and some entire congregations severed their ties with the ICOC.[53] Local fellowships varied in their reactions to the power vacuum. ICOC Chronicler Chris Lee asserts that three factions emerged, still extant today: a conservative group which seeks a return to the former, authoritarian structure; a moderate group that, "while they recognize that reform is necessary, feel that the current rate of reform is sufficient"; and a reformist group which advocates radical restructuring.[54]
Efforts have been made to restore unity among the various branches of the Restoration Movement. In 1984 a "Restoration Summit" was held at the Ozark Christian College, with fifty representatives of both the Churches of Christ and the Christian churches and churches of Christ.[55]:642 Later meetings were open to all, and were known as "Restoration Forums."[55]:642 Beginning in 1986 they have been held annually, generally in October or November, with the hosting venue alternating between the Churches of Christ and the Christian churches and churches of Christ.[55]:642 Topics discussed have included issues such as instrumental music, the nature of the church, and practical steps for promoting unity.[55]:642 Efforts have been made in the early 21st century to include representatives of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).[55]:642 These efforts followed the "Stone-Campbell Dialogue," which was a series of meetings beginning in 1999 that included representatives of all three major U.S. branches of the Restoration Movement.[55]:642[56]:720 The first full meeting in 1999 included six representatives from each of the three traditions.[56]:720 Meetings were held twice annually, and in 2001 were expanded to include anyone associated with the Restoration Movement who was interested in attending.[56]:720 Also, special efforts were made in 2006 to create more intentional fellowship between the various branches of the Movement.[57][58] This was in conjunction with the one hundredth anniversary of the "official" recognition of the split between the Christian Church and the Churches of Christ by the U.S. Census in 1906.[57][58] One example of this was the hosting, by Abilene Christian University (also founded in 1906), of the annual Restoration Unity Forum for 2006, as part of ACU's annual Bible Lectureship.[59] During the program Don Jeanes, president of Milligan College and Royce Money, president of ACU, jointly gave a presentation on the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
Additionally, the compilation and publication of The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement[60] is evidence that scholars in the three wings still work together on common projects. Collaboration on the Encyclopedia also included representatives of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
Because the Restoration Movement lacks any centralized structure, having originated in a variety of places with different leaders, there is no consistent nomenclature for the movement as a whole.[61]:551 When the Stone and Campbell movements united in 1832, Barton Stone advocated using the name "Christians" based on its use in Acts 11:26, while Campbell preferred the term "disciples" because he saw it as both a more humble and an older designation.[61]:551 After 1832, use of term "Reformation" became frequent among leaders of the movement.[61]:551 The Campbells had designated themselves as "Reformers," and other early leaders also saw themselves as reformers seeking Christian unity and restoring apostolic Christianity.[61]:551 The movement's language at the time included phrases such as "religious reformation," the "present reformation," the "current reformation" and "the cause of reformation."[61]:551
The term "Restoration Movement" became popular as the 19th century progressed.[61]:551 It appears to have been inspired by Alexander Campbell's essays on "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things" in the Christian Baptist.[61]:551 This name has remained popular among the Churches of Christ and the Christian churches and churches of Christ.[61]:551 Because of the emphasis it places on the theme of restoration, it has been a less comfortable fit for those whose primary focus has been on the theme of unity.[61]:551 Historically, the term "Disciples of Christ" has also been used by some as a collective designation for the movement.[61]:551 It has evolved, however, into a designation for a particular branch of the movement - the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - as a result of the divisions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[61]:551
The term "Stone-Campbell Movement" emerged towards the end of the 20th century as a way to avoid the difficulties associated with some of the other names that have been used, and to maintain a sense of the collective history of the movement.[61]:551 Other names that have been used include "the Brotherhood", "the Cause" and "the churches."[61]:551 While the use of the word "movement" is supported by a fairly broad consensus, no single terminology is generally accepted or has official status.[61]:551
The Restoration Movement was characterized by several key principles:
A number of slogans have been used in the Restoration Movement, which are intended to express some of the distinctive themes of the Movement.[64]:688 These include:
All of the three major U.S. branches of the Movement share the following characteristics:
Restoration Movement churches are found around the world and the World Convention of Churches of Christ provides a link for many national profiles.
Their genealogies are representative of developments in North America. Their theological orientation ranges from fundamentalist to liberal to ecumenical. In some places they have joined with churches of other traditions to form united churches at local, regional or national level.
A group in Nottingham withdrew from the Scotch Baptist church in 1836 to form a Church of Christ.[66]:369 James Wallis, a member of that group, founded a magazine named the British Millennial Harbinger in 1837.[66]:369 In 1842 the first Cooperative Meeting of Churches of Christ in Great Britain was held in Edinburgh.[66]:369 Approximately 50 congregations were involved, representing a membership of 1,600.[66]:369 The name "Churches of Christ" was formally adopted at an annual meeting in 1870.[66]:369 Alexander Campbell influenced the British Restoration Movement indirectly through his writings; he visited the Britain for several months in 1847, and "presided at the Second Cooperative Meeting of the British Churches at Chester."[66]:369 At that time the movement had grown to encompass 80 congregations with a total membership of 2,300.[66]:369 Annual meetings were held after 1847.[66]:369
The use of instrumental music in worship was not a source of division among the Churches of Christ in Great Britain before World War I. More significant was the issue of pacifism; a national conference was established in 1916 for congregations that opposed the war.[66]:371 A conference for "Old Paths" congregations was first held in 1924.[66]:371 The issues involved included concern that the Christian Association was compromising traditional principles in seeking ecumenical ties with other organizations and a sense that it had abandoned Scripture as "an all-sufficient rule of faith and practice."[66]:371 Two "Old Paths" congregations withdrew from the Association in 1931; an additional two withdrew in 1934, and nineteen more withdrew between 1943 and 1947.[66]:371
Membership declined rapidly during and after the First World War.[66]:372[67]:312 The Association of Churches of Christ in Britain disbanded in 1980.[66]:372[67]:312 Most Association congregations (approximately 40) united with the United Reformed Church in 1981.[66]:372[67]:312 In the same year, twenty-four other congregations formed a Fellowship of Churches of Christ.[66]:372 The Fellowship developed ties with the Christian churches and churches of Christ during the 1980s.[66]:372[67]:312
The Fellowship of Churches of Christ and some Australian and New Zealand Churches advocate a "missional" emphasis with an ideal of "Five Fold Leadership." Many people in more traditional Churches of Christ see these groups as having more in common with Pentecostal churches. The main publishing organs of traditional Churches of Christ in Britain are The Christian Worker magazine and the Scripture Standard magazine. A history of the Association of Churches of Christ, Let Sects and Parties Fall, was written by David M Thompson.[68]
Historically, Restoration Movement groups from Great Britain were more influential than those from the United States in the early development of the movement in Australia.[69]:47 Churches of Christ grew up independently in several locations.[69]:47
While early Churches of Christ in Australia saw creeds as divisive, towards the end of the 19th century they began viewing "summary statements of belief" as useful in tutoring second generation members and converts from other religious groups.[69]:50 The period from 1875 through 1910 also saw debates over the use of musical instruments in worship, Christian Endeavor Societies and Sunday Schools. Ultimately, all three found general acceptance in the movement.[69]:51
Currently, the Restoration Movement is not as divided in Australia as it is in the United States.[69]:53 There have been strong ties with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), but many conservative ministers and congregations associate with the Christian churches and churches of Christ instead.[69]:53 Others have sought support from non-instrumental Churches of Christ, particularly those who felt that "conference" congregations had "departed from the restoration ideal."[69]:53
Although Barton W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott were to become the best-known and most influential early leaders of the movement, others preceded them and laid the foundation for their work.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||