by Daniel H. King, Sr.
Synopsis: Over time, many fell away from the faith that was revealed by Christ and His inspired apostles. While men offer various solutions to the problem of religious division, the Biblical approach involves a call to repentance and a restoration of the ancient order.
The very concept of restoration suggests an implicit problem with the status quo in religion—something has been lost over time which needs to be revitalized and restored. So, of course, we cannot even begin to speak formally of its existence until the religious situation in Christianity since its beginning had deteriorated to a sufficient degree that circumstances called for a return to a state which no longer prevailed, namely unity.
Even though it was quite common in the early days of the church to have promoters of various doctrinal errors present in the churches, and even in some cases in full control of certain congregations (Gnosticism, Docetism, libertines, Nicolaitans, etc.), they were at first seen as a perverse presence within the church itself. They did not start their own denomination and designate it as something different from the church of Christ.
Over time, however, all of this changed. The Council of Ephesus in AD 431 brought about the beginning of the Assyrian Church, and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 saw the start of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Indian, and Eritrean). The Great Schism in the eleventh century divided Catholicism into the Western (Roman Catholic) Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, Slavic). Out of Western or Catholic churches came the Reformation churches of the sixteenth century in all their profusion, Anglicanism, Protestantism, Anabaptist groups, etc. Over time, hundreds of different groups, quite distinctive doctrinally and organizationally, came into existence.
As religious diversity and sectarianism were evolving and devolving, a single aggravating reality would have become very apparent to any casual observer: ever-burgeoning denominationalism made the very possibility of any genuine religious unity more and more a thing of the past, a distant memory and a tremendous challenge to attain. Real issues of faith and life were at stake, and little agreement existed on questions that were fundamental to the religion itself. Questions such as the place of Scripture and human tradition in the ongoing life of the church, popery, Mariolatry, man-made laws, perversion of the concepts of faith and works, human freedom and divine prerogative, the nature and purpose of baptism, the true meaning of the communion Supper, etc., had groups allied on various sides and were represented by distinct religious affiliations. These are matters of signal importance, and cannot be relegated to the realm of personal opinion or spiritual inconsequence.
So, one could rightly observe that from the start of this “dividing up” process, there has always been a tension between these two concepts, unity and restoration, and most of the problems which have been caused over the years relative to the two subjects have been due to an out-of-balance tendency to push one of these ideas beyond its biblical limitations at the expense of the other. An imbalanced approach to unity has frequently led to fellowship with doctrinal error.
At the same time, pressing the notion of restorationism beyond its scriptural limits led to confusion and division where it was not necessary. This was true in the case where prohibiting the use of separate Bible classes, women teachers of children, located preachers, multiple communion cups, etc., was pressed to the point of division and alienation, along with a host of other matters which should never have troubled brethren and caused disunity.
Taking their cue from the great “restoration” movements of Jewish history—instituted by kings like Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Kings 18:1ff; 2 Chron. 29:1ff.; 2 Kings 22:1ff.; 2 Chron. 34:1ff.), along with the prophets of Judah and Israel—and with sectarianism rife in the Americas, many leading lights of the early nineteenth century wearied of the creeds and their promotion among the people of their time. Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Warren Stone, “Racoon” John Smith, Walter Scott, Moses Lard, and a host of other great men of God became involved in promoting the concept of restoring New Testament Christianity in the several states of the American union. These gifted orators and writers put before the masses such ideas as following nothing that was not as old as the New Testament itself.
Hence, they rejected infant baptism, closed communion, human creeds, and confessions of faith, humanly-contrived religious associations such as missionary societies and presbyteries, while emphasizing a return or “restoration” to such ideas as are manifestly taught in the New Testament. In their view, the Bible was looked upon as the final court of appeal in all matters having to do with the Christian religion. Congregations began to follow the New Testament pattern of organization, worship, and work. Bible things were called by Bible names and understood in Bible ways. As a result, when men and congregations had genuinely begun to follow the New Testament in all its teachings, then and there the New Testament church had been restored to its first century manifestation. True “restoration” had been accomplished, and the unity for which Jesus had prayed (John 17:20-23) and that Paul commanded for the church had been attained (1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:1-6).
In contrast, the denominational world thought of this idea of unity differently than did these men—seeing it in terms of union rather than unity. Thus, they urged upon the various groups a continuance of the status quo doctrinally and practically while ignoring their sometimes very significant differences in doctrine and practice.
One of the earliest expressions of sentiment toward bringing together disparate religious groups was the Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom, founded in 1857. This organization advocated prayers for the unity of the various “Christian” churches. The Ecumenical Movement, properly so called, began as a quest among Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Old Catholic, and many Protestant churches for reconciliation and unity. This movement began in the early decades of the twentieth century.
What motivated them toward this new approach? Apparently, many of them were weary of the strife that went along with denominational differences. The World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910 opened the eyes of many churchmen to the tragedy of disunity among the denominations and the continuous competition between churches that claimed to follow Jesus Christ. The Faith and Order movement and the Life and Work movement in the 1920’s eventually contributed to the establishment of the World Council of Churches in 1948, which was an outgrowth of the ecumenical approach to so much religious fragmentation among professed followers of Christ.
At the same time, a sizeable number of Protestant communities, especially in the Baptist, Evangelical, and the Fundamentalist traditions, have generally avoided ecumenical engagement. The logic follows this line of reasoning: The more liberal the thinking of the churches, the less doctrinal matters have seemed to count. The more conservative the churches have been, the less anxious they have been to lower their doctrinal and practical barriers to fellowship. Therefore, it is evident that theological liberalism is largely responsible for a willingness to set aside differences to achieve unification in ecumenical terms.
With the dawning of the twentieth century, a growing division between churches of Christ and Christian churches began to make itself felt in a major way. It had been evident since the middle of the previous century with the introduction of various missionary societies (and especially the American Christian Missionary Society, formed in October of 1849) into the work of local churches and the musical instrument into the worship of many of the more liberal leaning congregations. The American census of 1906 for the first time recognized formally the distinction which had existed already for decades informally. Make no mistake about it: attitudes had been changing for many years; moreover, this mindset had real consequences for both the notion of religious unity and the idea of how the restoration of Bible concepts and practices could affect that unity.
At this point, the more progressive side of the movement began to be wooed by the siren song of the growing sentiment toward ecumenism among the various denominations. It essentially represented the notion of “fellowship within religious diversity,” and spelled doom for the concept of calling the sects back to the Bible and away from their human traditions and man-made creeds. By the end of the nineteenth century, J. H. Garrison, editor of the Christian Evangelist, a journal circulated in the Disciples’ movement, believed he could fit the older principles of the restoration movement into the newer thought patterns of the ecumenical ideology. Garrison believed in “progressive Reformation” and urged this new manner of thinking and speaking upon the Disciples.
Culmination of this thought process came in 1902 at the Disciples’ General Convention in Omaha when Dr. E. B. Sanford, secretary of the National Federation of Churches explained this idea in restorationist terms: “to bring believers of every name who recognize their oneness in Christ into such cooperative relations that along the lines of practical service and counsel they will most effectively advance the Kingdom of God” (West, 37). Garrison recommended to the Convention acceptance of “cordial approval of the effort to bring the churches of this country into closer cooperation and to give truer expression of the degree of unity which already exists,” and the resolution passed, although not unanimously.
It was clear, however, to everyone present that day, that many in the movement were not yet prepared for unbridled fellowship with the errors of various denominations. Notable among those who opposed the motion was J. A. Lord, editor of the influential Christian Standard magazine, along with several other men of a more conservative bent. Yet, theological liberalism engulfed the Disciples movement, and the conservatives were swept aside. They would later constitute the Christian Church and would see a total breach with the Disciples of Christ.
As the historian, Earl West, explained, “The churches of Christ, however, had already removed themselves from the stormy arena and watched from the sidelines with restrained amusement. They saw the Disciple movement as currently moving headlong away from early restoration principles into the status of full-fledged liberal Protestant denominational establishment” (Ibid., 38). Acceptance of missionary societies and mechanical instrumental music into their worship and service had set both of the other religious traditions on a path toward total apostasy as well as alienation from those who were the true heirs of the movement’s founders.
FitzGerald, Thomas E. The Ecumenical Movement: An Introductory History. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004.
McAllister, Lester G., and Tucker, William E. Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1975.
West, Earl Irvin. The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement 1900-1918. Volume 3. Indianapolis, IN: Religious Book Service, 1979.
Author Bio: Daniel H. King, Sr. preaches for the Locust St. church of Christ in Mt. Pleasant, TN. Their website is lscoc.com. He can be reached at danielhking@hotmail.com.
