A Failed Attempt at Unity - The Restoration Movement

I read parts of Christianity Restored by Alexander Campbell earlier this year.

My initial thought in reading the book was that Alexander Campbell threw away all of the established creeds and created a creed that was much more complex in what could be described as a “hermeneutical approach” creed.

Here are two defining quotes:

"Our opposition to creeds arose from a conviction, that whether the opinions in them were true or false, they were hostile to the uniion, peace, harmony, purity, and joy of christians; and adverse to the conversion of the world to Jesus Christ."

"All the differences in religious opinion and sentiment, amongst those who acknowledge the Bible, are occassioned by false principles of interpretation, or by a misapplication of the true principles. There is no law, nor standard--literary, moral, or religious--that can coerce human thought or action, by only promulging and acknowledging it. If a law can effect any thing, our actions must be conformed to it. Were all students of the Bible taught to apply the same rules of interpretation to its pages, there would be a greater uniformity in opinion and sentiment, than ever resulted from the simple adoption of any written creed."

Campbell then goes on to explain his hermeneutical principles for eighty-five pages. Instead of having a ten point creed, he produced an eighty-five page pseudo-creed. It was his firm belief that one must share hermeneutical methods in order to come to the same conclusions. I think he was somewhat correct in his belief that a unity could be achieved if we all shared the same hermeneutical methods; however, that unity would not be a genuine unity. It would be an “intellectual unity” that scholars could share but it would not unite the masses.

Alexander Campbell believed that intellectual unity would bring about a genuine unity; however, history shows that we can be intellectually divided and still have Christian unity or we can have intellectual unity and still be divided. I could beat my head against a wall trying to convince someone to intellectually agree with me. It would be more fruitful to get them to participate with me in action. Unity starts with sharing actions rather than sharing intellectual processes. Shared hermeneutics would result in a shared theology but that does not always translate into a shared spirituality. If we share actions, our differing theology might not matter all that much.

A friend of mine wrote: “Rather than ask how 18-19th century methods of reading ancient texts may guide the church's reading of Scripture, we might ask what contemporary methods are bearing fruit analyzing ancient texts and how such methods may be used to foster a shared hermeneutic for today.” The problem is that modern methods vary as the wind and location of the circumstances the scholar finds himself in. It seems that – at least in secular fields, particularly literature – the original intent of the author is irrelevant next to the interpretation of the reader. People seemed to be enthralled with movies like The Fountain where the writer/director refuses to tell what the point is and proclaims that everyone's interpretation is valid. This modern day approach cannot bring about a shared hermeneutic that would result in an intellectual unity.

Campbell's approach which was not even successful is no longer even practical. Unity will only come through humble communities of believers listening to the will of God.

Original comments below:

 shannoncaroland said...
No creeds but Christ... and this one, but that's it.

True: Writing Creeds has a way of being divisive as it leads hyper-analyzation.

Also True: Refusing to write or accept creeds is even more divisive, because you will be seen as placing yourself above the rest of Christendom.

Also Also True: Creed was a telantless Pearl Jam rip off.
JUNE 25, 2007 12:06 PM

 regan said...
I agree with all of your truths except even mentioning Pearl Jam in the same sentence as Creed is a disservice to the former.

Does your church have a creed?
JUNE 25, 2007 12:25 PM

 Sam said...
My church does not have a creed per se, but rather a "Statement of Faith." You can view it at http://centralholstoncc.org/Page.asp?PID=4

I had no pat in making it and it was around before I came to the church, but nonetheless.
JUNE 25, 2007 3:03 PM

Further Conversation Over My Post on Essentials

The first collection of replies:  The Facebook Conversation Over My Post on Essentials

The original post:  A Proposed Minimal Set of Essentials

Grady replied:

The people in the book of Acts that reieved the Holy Spirit pre baptism, what was the context of those incidents? Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on his disciples He sent out, was this before their baptism? Absolutly the Holy Spirit is the seal, and the judgement is not a judgement of comdenation (to hell), the judgement is the one that we make a decision aas to if a person has obeyed and become. The scripture is very clear on this. When people hear us say you have not become a Christian yet, they are very quick to assume we are making a judgement of comdemnation against them, and use it because of what the common thinking is concerning judgement (don't judge lest you be judged). Sp to our marching order's...if we are to make disciples (and we are) then what do we teach as to how that happen's...the truth of the matter, no matter what others may teach. We are to teach those who would to believe in the gosple, belive Jesus as God's Son, that He died for the sins of the world, and that when this is accepted, we teach that they need to turn from their sin, confess Christ and then to be baptized (first fruits!). Then when they have obeyed we teach them of the promises of the Spirit, and then comes the how to walk.

In the initial post you asked about "In essentials, unity. In opinions, liberty. In all things, love." And said you had never heard anyone give explanation of this. That is what I was addressing.

You may have forgot what Paul said to always interact with one another in a spirit of humility, gentleness, patience, and love. Without that, our message is lost, this is true, he also said to preach the truth.

You can feel free to teach something different as to the essentials of the truth, but I will not. I teach the scripture, not my opinion. It is our JOB to teach them first to become before we teach them how to be, once we have done this then to be is the true course. If wew don't teach them the path of conversion, it is not I who will do any judgement of condemnation (thankfully not my job to do so).

Hey got to run to my people, God bless your day, may He convince you of His truth in all things. Love you! 

 Regan replied:

Ultimately, we just disagree about how one can receive the Holy Spirit through our understandings of the teaching of Scripture, especially the book of Acts. I feel that the Holy Spirit only comes at baptism crowd has "contextualized" away every difficult passage that disagrees with them. Maybe you also do that. Maybe that is the right approach. I am not comfortable with that approach. Those exceptions are there to show us that there are exceptions. Until either I state that baptism is the only place you can get the Holy Spirit or you acknowledge that those exceptions were given to show that there can still be exceptions, we will just be running around in circles if we continue. That is the crux of our disagreement.

We also disagree on separating what we teach from what are the essentials. I will teach that a person should be baptized after giving their life over to Jesus. Baptism is the normative place for people to receive the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean that I will exclude people who show fruit and acknowledge Jesus as Lord from fellowship. Our movement started with open fellowship and open communion. On the frontier, circuit riders could only make it once a month or once a quarter. People were not allowed to take of the Lord's Supper until the circuit rider came into town. What happened was people started gathering for communion without the clergy. They started baptizing people without the clergy. But they joined together as people who wanted to study the word and living under Jesus' lordship.

Over time, we, who started as a unity through Scripture movement, just became as divisive as the denominations we were trying to bring together. Instead of ending sectarianism, we just added another sect to the fray. Over 150 years later, the denominations have stopped being divisive, non-denominational (locally led) churches are flourishing, and nearly everyone is baptized as adult believers except for in a few mainline denominations. We are fighting battles that were fought for us over 150 years ago. We're like Civil War reenactors remembering the battle, but instead of it just being a hobby, it's really damaging to the Kingdom of God.

The men who started the Restoration Movement, from which the modern Church of Christ/Christian Church come, both took this stance.

Alexander Campbell said:
Should I find one [baptized as an infant] more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than…one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians.

Barton Stone said:
None of us are disposed to make our notions of baptism, however well founded, a bar of christian fellowship. We acknowledge all to be brethren, who believe and obey the Saviour, and, who walking in the Spirit, bear his holy image; yet, in the meekness of Christ, we labor to convince such of their duty in submitting to every ordinance of the Lord.

My list of essentials came from the same vein that the Church of Chirst/Christian Church was founded on. We teach baptism, yet we do not make it a test of fellowship. Who am I to say that a person who is not baptized but is more faithful and fruitful is saved? God knows their heart. Paul wrote, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." I will teach them the Scriptural teachings on baptism, but God knows their heart and their lives show evidence of the Spirit.

I believe I teach Scripture. You can call it my opinion; it is. So is what you teach. Each one of us teach our opinion of what Scripture teaches. Some day we will know fully as is taught in 1 Corinthians 13:12. Until then, everyone filters Scripture, hopefully in tune with the Spirit, through their own brains, experiences, etc. So we always teach what we believe is the truth, but we must always do it as Paul taught, with humility, gentleness, patience, and love.

Do you really believe that every person not immersed as an adult believer does not have the Holy Spirit? How do you reconcile those verses that I mentioned on how Jesus and Paul taught us how to know who are Jesus' followers?

Regan replied to Dan's previous reply: 

It is a biblical explanation of why we can work with people who are not from our particular background on furthering God's work and accept them as brothers and sisters in Jesus where they are, but in a way it also deals with who is saved and who is not. But it does not deal with what I would teach to someone who wants to be saved. I have no qualms saying that the ministers I consider my friends from other denominations are my brothers in Jesus. They don't have to be brothers in Jesus to be my friends, but I see the love of Christ in their lives, the fruit of the Spirit growing in them, and they share my proclamation that Jesus is Lord. It does not mean that we just leave things rest and don't dialogue with one another on our differences. It's just that I think that dialogue should happen in the context of accepting one another as a brother and sister in Christ. I think they have as much to teach me as I do them, as long as we keep the Bible as the center of those discussions.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I agree wholeheartedly. "The church is probably in the state it is in because we love judging outsiders and refuse to collectively judge those inside the church. We have completely backwards maybe because we have not challenged each other's motives." I agree that we have the whole judging people backward. Those outside of Jesus, I do not judge. Those inside, I judge, but in a gentle, patient, and loving way to help them be who God wants them to be. They should do the same to me. Together, we spur one another on to reach the prize.

 Laura's response:

Yeesh, I tried to read all those, but I'm getting sleepy. I'll leave the scholarly talks to you guys...I just felt from the heart that forcing a list isn't what's needed. God could have made the Bible much clearer, shorter, more compact. He... could have used lists and numbers or used only a few writers to keep us from "discussing" what THAT writer intended. He didn't. It requires us to rely heavily on the Holy Spirit to interpret it and over time and seasons and experiences, we see things we'd never seen before. Is this because we were just wrong before and now we are right, or because God gives us these things in His time? I just don't think a list is necessary. I think we can deal with things as they come and have the answer at that time. If I come upon someone and I want to decide if they are a brother or not, I can look at a list. That sounds convenient. But I could also decide in that moment what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell me-through the Bible, through other believers, through experience, and always with love. Or decide over a period of time, etc...

I'm not automatically against lists or creeds or church goals, etc... but sometimes I wonder why we need to put things in OUR (by "our" I mean mine and whoever agrees with me) own words apart from scripture. Call me floppy, but I don't have hard and fast rules about certain things (or most things, for that matter), and I don't think you're wrong for wanting to clarify, for the sake of unity, the essentials. But I don't know that it's best either. I've used catch phrases of the church and have found them helpful to me and to others, but I don't think they were necessary.

 Regan's reply to Laura:

My list was a list of Scriptures and not my opinions. But I understand your hesitancy because it was my opinion that chose which Scriptures to include. How does one decide what Scriptures would be used as a test of fellowship? Do we use all... of Scripture, and they have to agree with us on everything? Do we use more than what I used or less? You would say that it is up to the Holy Spirit. That's what I think I was saying in a more structured way. If they have the Spirit, I can discern that, and they claim Jesus is Lord and follow the greatest commandment, then they are brothers and sisters. The problem is that those who refuse to have a list like this often are the most divisive and sectarian. I'm not saying you are, but I have experienced that. They typically have lists, that if written out would be longer than any denominational handbook.

Would you accept someone as a brother who said that Jesus is not Lord, showed absolutely no fruit of the Spirit in their life, did not strive to live a life of loving God and loving God or loving their neighbor? I am pretty sure I wouldn't. Even in the moment. But the list was focused more on us being able to have fellowship with people in the community who might not go to a church with the same name on the sign as our church or all of the same beliefs as our church.

The four Scriptures I chose were selected to help my local church pull back from all of the divisiveness and sectarianism that our movement in this geographic area struggles with, focus on the essentials, and move forward to minister to our community from there.

Also, in the local context, we are involved in starting a community youth center with other churches. A few struggle with whether that should be done because they were once taught that people in those other churches are not Christians. We make this judgment call whether we want to or not. I laid this out to show what the essentials are and how we are to evaluate whether a person is a Christian or not. I could ignore there frustrations and just say that I think they are a Christian and that should be good enough, but it's my job to teach. So these essentials were more of an explanation of why we can be involved with other churches in a youth center. Not a list to exclude people. I don't think this list would exclude anyone who wanted to be considered a Christian. It's a minimal list of essentials. It's frustrating to some because it includes too many people, not enough essentials. The discussion centers around whether it should be broader, not narrower.

And I understand where they are coming from; we should just teach the Bible. But unfortunately, the issue of who to accept as a brother or sister is an issue that our church was struggling with. So I attempted to teach on that through Scripture. It was a list because I tried to deal with the passages that talked about who to accept and what are the greatest teachings. I could have called it something other than a list, but it was a list nonetheless, whether I called it by another name or not.

How would you teach someone who was saying people are not Christians that those people are in fact Christians? Or how would you teach someone who thought certain people were Christians who you thought were not? Unfortunately, just leaving it alone would not have helped the church move forward, so that really wasn't an option.

Christ is not Divided - A Discussion on Essentials (Part Two)

We know God’s people, not by them agreeing with us hook, line and sinker on every issue we believe.

One thing I love about the Church of Christ/Christian Churches is our heritage.  Early on, one of the driving statements of our movement was the traditional church statement, “In essentials, unity.  In opinions, liberty.  In all things, love.”  We were the first non-denominational movement in the world, and now non-denominational churches are the fastest growing churches in the land.  The problem is that we have strayed from being non-denominational into being a denomination.  Some people in the Church of Christ will not even accept the non-denominational churches as being on the right track because they are not non-denominational the way we are.

Some of us have become more sectarian than the sectarianism of the denominations our movement was founded to free the church from.  We claim to have no book but the Bible as our guideline for fellowship and the faith, but we all too often place our interpretations of pet Scriptures or even beliefs that are not even expressed in Scripture as issues of fellowship.  In denominational churches, they typically have handbooks that describe what the church believes, what it requires to be a leader in the church, and how people in the church should live.  We have no handbook outside of Scripture, but all too often, we have erred in making unwritten, ever-changing handbooks, a handbook just as legalistic as those in the denominations, except we are not transparent about them and people do not know what is expected of them.

Our conviction at our church is to no longer be that way.  We want to be non-denominational, not anti-denominational.  There is a big difference.  Anti-denominational people think that people in denominations cannot be right with God because they are in a denomination.  Non-denominational means that we choose to be locally led, but we don’t hate denominations.  Through non-denominational lenses we do not see the man-made lines we have created.  Non-denominational people do not get hung up with denominational names and view each person as an individual, right with God based upon their own faithfulness to Him and not on their church affiliation. Condemning people in other churches and dividing over the names we use to call ourselves is so contrary to Scripture.

Paul actually had to deal with this in the Corinthian church.

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”  Is Christ divided?   [1 Cor 1:10-13 (ESV)].

Let’s put it in modern words.

For it has been reported to me by people on Facebook that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Luther,” or “I follow Wesley,” or “I follow Calvin,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided?  [not 1 Cor 1:10-13 (ESV)].

I wish I was as faithful at following Jesus as Luther or as Wesley.  They were great Christians, faithful to the point of selflessness.  I understand why people thought they were on the right track on how to follow Jesus and desired to follow Jesus the way Luther or Wesley did.  And if we are honest with ourselves and study the history of the Restoration Movement, we follow Jesus in the same vein as Alexander Campbell followed Jesus, although we might not have ever read him, really don't even know about him, nor do we call ourselves Campbellites.  We should not be arrogant or look down on others who follow Jesus differently because they come from a different heritage; we come from a heritage that has taught us how to study Scriptures and follow Jesus the way we do.. 

Paul concluded his section on division in the early chapter in Corinthian by stating:

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.  [1 Cor 3:21-23 (ESV)].

All are Christ’s.  Even those who follow him like Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley – Christ is not divided.  We need to stop quarreling among ourselves and with our brothers and sisters in Christ in other churches because bickering destroys our witness to the world.,  We need to have the heart of Jesus and figure out how we can serve one another.  In order to do this, we need to clearly understand the essentials that we are willing to divide over.

More tomorrow.

For further reading:
A Discussion on Essentials (Part One)

Discerning Changeable Culutral Traditions from Unwavering Scriptural Teachings - Hymns Once Again

I'm happy to be part of the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches.  Our origin, like many of the great church movements, centered around getting back to Scripture.  Where would we be if great people of faith like John Wesley, Martin Luther, and the people in our own movement like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone did not emphasize being faithful to Scripture and relevant to the culture over adhering to the traditions of the church.  

Yet all of these movements became ensnared by traditions once the God-inspired reformers left.  Each man-made tradition eventually quenched the Spirit and caused the church to falter until another reformer came along and once again threw away all tradition to present the Gospel in a culturally relevant way.  The honest truth is that the great reformers used culturally relevant ways to communicate the Good News.  Those who came after those reformers often confused the call to get back to the Bible with the culturally relevant methods the reformers used.  They would cling to the methods rather than the Spirit that inspired those methods.  We, as ambassadors of the Good News, need to be great students of the Bible, sensitive to the Spirit, and discern the difference between cultural traditions that can change and teachings of Scripture that are unwavering.

One of the more obvious and easier to point out traditions in the current church are hymns.  There is no biblical mandate about singing songs, some of which were rewritten bar songs, that were written in the 1800s or early 1900s.  These were not written during the time of Christ and they are not the hymns referred to in Ephesians 5:18b-19.  "Be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart" Eph 5:18-19 (ESV).

The words of many of the hymns are beautiful, inspiring, and are worth singing, but a church is not right or wrong with God because they sing hymns.  Some modern songs have just as great words, and I'm sadly sure there will be people arguing to sing them in fifty years. If a church could be more relevant to the culture around them by using a music style that is the language of the people, then they should do that whether that music style is their personal preference or not.  Because when it comes down to it, we should be willing to discard any tradition that is not based on Scripture if it will help us be more effective ambassadors of God's kingdom.  Clinging to traditions that we like at the cost of alienating those outside of the church is exactly what all of the great reformers rebelled against.

Martin Luther was a great reformer because he fought for the language of the Bible and the gathering of believers to be in the language of the people.  He considered it folly that the church attempted to instruct the masses in a language that they did not understand.  There was nothing productive that would come from people participating in the empty ritual of listening to a message they could not understand and connect with.

The same is true with the style of music.  An outdated style can be as great of a "language barrier" as a foreign language.  If the church is not using a style that can be found on the non-Christian radio dial, then what cultural barrier do we expect a seeker to crash through before connecting with God through music.  I remember being a seeker in a worship service and being touched by God during the culturally relevant worship service, music that really is no longer culturally relevant.  I would be wrong to say that those songs that touched my heart should be the ones we use today because they should still be able to touch hearts just the same.  The purpose of worship in church is to instruct and bring people into the presence of God.  Those missions are hampered if the music is not culturally relevant.

We are not in the kingdom of God to please ourselves.  It is all about God, bringing about his will, and bringing people to Him.  If there is any obstacle to the Gospel, let it not be some tradition that we enjoy.  Let us make sure that it is Jesus' radical demands on people's lives and never allow any tradition to get between that message of Jesus and the seeker.  The traditions we personally enjoy should be quickly and lovingly tossed aside when necessary for the greater good of the kingdom.

A Summation of the Teachings of Alexander Campbell by Frederick Kershner

A summation of the teachings of Alexander Campbell by Frederick Kershner. Taken from Dean Mills' Union on the Kings Highway (The Campbell Stone Heritage of Unity Series) (45-46).

1.That the Church is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one, including all who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in all things.

2.That although the Church exists in local congregations, each should be charitable towards the others, receiving one another as brethren and walking by the same rule.

3.That nothing can be made conditions of fellowship and obligation except what is expressly taught in the Scriptures.

4.That although the two Testaments form the entire revelation of God and are inseparable, the New Testament is the perfect constitution for worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church.

5.That no human authority has power to impose new ordinances and commandments or add anything as a term of fellowship that is not as old as the New Testament.

6.That logical inferences and deductions from Scripture based on human wisdom cannot be made binding upon the consciences of other Christians any further than they understand them.

7.That inferential truths resulting from human logic ought not be made conditions of fellowship since not all Christians attain the same degree of knowledge.

8.That Church membership is conditioned upon profession of faith in Christ and obedience to Him, and not upon attaining particular degree of knowledge of Scripture.

9.That all who make this profession are children of the same Father and should treat one another as brothers.

10.That division among the children of God is anti-Christian, anti-Scriptural, anti-natural, and produces confusion.

11.That all division can be traced to either a partial neglect of the Scriptures or making human innovations conditions of fellowship.

12.That purity of the Church is contingent upon a pure membership and a qualified ministry that follow the example of the primitive church.

13.That any human expedients necessary to this endeavor must make no pretense to sacred origin so that future changes in them will not produce contention or division.

I think we run into problems in deciphering "what is expressly taught in Scripture" and what are "logical inferences and deductions from Scripture." Some of our logical inferences and deductions seem so obvious to us that we think they are expressly taught.