|
A book that details different currents in the "Restoration movement"
Should we identify the church of Christ with the "Restoration movement?"
Richard T. Hughes has written a fascinating book on "Churches of Christ in America." When reading such histories it is essential to remember that the perspective of historians is not a Biblical perspective. The Campbell-Stone Movement is not the church of Christ nor the kingdom of God. The church is simply all the saved people in the world. Only God knows who belongs to it because only He knows how far His mercy will be extended. The church of Christ is in the mind of God, not in the mind of historians nor Christians with sectarian concepts.
However, it is possible to acknowledge the influence of Christians in the past without giving allegiance to a religious movement or considering that movement to be the church of Christ. The Corinthians would have been foolish to disclaim the influence of the Apostle Paul in their lives, and yet they were warned not to identify with him but only with Christ (I Corinthians 1:10-17). I have been greatly affected in my thinking by my parents, grandparents and other faithful Christians, and yet my spiritual loyalty should be only to the Savior. To deny that I have been influenced by Campbell, Stone, Lipscomb and other godly preachers of past years would be naive. And yet, I need to be extremely careful that my ultimate devotion not be to a set of interpretations handed down by men, whether right or wrong, but to Christ.
Hughes traces several currents among churches of Christ, two in particular: (1) the early Campbell influence, especially that which came from "The Christian Baptist" and (2) the Stone-Lipscomb influence. A third perspective, more liberal and denominational, came from Campbell's later writings and, according to Hughes, is seen primarily in the "Disciples of Christ" denomination. It seems to me like that third perspective is also found in many loose thinking "mainstream" congregations that claim to be of Christ.
Hughes believes that the origins of the division between the Disciples of Christ and "Churches of Christ" precede the Civil War. They involved differences between those influenced by the early "legalistic" teachings of Campbell along with the apocalyptic concepts of Stone, and those who promoted Campbell's later, more denominational teaching.
According to Hughes, Campbell's early teaching emphasized the understandibility of the Bible and the importance of following a pattern in the collective work, worship and organization of the church. Stone's perspective, later developed by Lipscomb, reflects an apocalyptic world view, emphasizing personal piety and separation from the world. Hughes feels that the other world emphasis of Stone and Lipscomb can be seen in positions such as pacifism and avoiding participation in civil government. It became less influential in mainstream churches after the World Wars and the controversy in the 1930's over premillenialism.
Hughes has many revealing things to say about the controversy over institutionalism from an historical perspective, especially in chapter 10. He says on page 14,
"Though mainstream Churches of Christ time and time again characterized those who opposed institutionalism as unfaithful to the heritage, the truth is that the dissenters stood squarely in one set of footprints of the nineteenth-century Churches of Christ. And by the time the battle over institutions was complete, it was the mainstream-not the dissenters-that had removed itself almost entirely from its nineteenth century roots."
"THE PATTERN" VERSUS LOVE AND GRACE
Throughout the book there are accounts of controversy between Christians who want to emphasize God's pattern for local churches and those who want to emphasize God's love and grace. An anecdote is given on pages 183,184 of an unidentified writer associated with Foy E. Wallace who visited F.L. Rowe in Cincinnati and preached four sermons that according to Rowe were "forceful" but "largely pugnacious." Rowe then asked him to preach on the prodigal son. The preacher "hesitated a minute and then said, 'Brother Rowe, I cannot do it. I have never studied that subject.'" The story illustrates the inability of some who solely emphasize a congregational pattern to preach on love and grace. Other anecdotes could be told of the inability of some who emphasize love and grace to preach on authority and sin.
But why does being careful with New Testament authority have to be considered incompatible with love and grace? Why can't congregations today imitate good first century churches that were guided directly in Christ's teaching by inspired apostles and prophets (1 Thessalonians 2:14), while emphasizing at the same time the death of Christ, His mercy, love and patience? Why does it have to be one or the other? The preaching of one while under emphasizing the other has been a curse to many influenced by the "restoration movement!" "These ought ye to have done without leaving the other undone." (Matt. 23:23)
CONCLUSION
Though it is stimulating to read about men whose teaching has influenced us, it is essential that we give book, chapter and verse in our teaching, not Campbell, Stone, Lipscomb or Wallace. If believers are baptized into Christ for remission of sins and strive to grow, they will be of Him today just as in the first century, no matter what any man has taught. .
Return to articles
Return to home page
|