Campbell Only or Primarily a Restorationist?

[Lee Freeman]

Many people, including not a few of his spiritual descendents, view Alexander Campbell only or primarily as a restorationist. Often such people have not read very much by Campbell, usually only a few of his "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things" series from the Christian Baptist. They often attempt to pigeonhole him and then move on. But there's a danger in viewing Campbell only, or primarily, as a restorationist, and in trying to pigeonhole him. Many people think Campbell was only interested in restoration, and that for its own sake, which is incorrect. For Campbell, restoration was a means to unity-one which he distanced himself from as he realized people weren't signing on board for it the way he'd hoped they would. I think people also overemphasize Campbell's reliance upon Locke and Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. As a younger man he enmbraced these two systems wholeheartedly, however he distanced himself from these more than a little as got older.

What Campbell got from Locke primarily was the idea that the essentials of Christianity could be reduced to a minimum upon which all reasonably intelligent people could agree, and that the church resembled a constitutional monarchy with Christ as head.

Common Sense Philosophy was a Scottish phenomenon of the late 18th and 19th centuries. It was in large measure a reaction to the philosophy of John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, etc. One central concern of the school was to defend "common sense" against philosophical paradox and scepticism. It argued that common-sense beliefs govern the lives and thoughts even of those who avow non-commonsensical beliefs and that matters of common sense are within "the reach of common understanding."

Campbell used Common Sense in the above way and to say that you could take a reasonably intelligent person, give them a modern translation of the Bible with a few basic interpretive guidelines, and they could understand scripture for themselves-they didn't need a clergymen or magisterium to interpret it for them, they were smart enough to figure it out on their own. God made the Bible intelligible to ordinary people. True-he advocated studying scripture as we would any other ancient historical document, however its main themes and ideas could be understood by all. Campbell hoped to rescue the Bible from the view that many people had that the Bible was a mystical, allegorial collection of texts that neeeded clergy to interpret them. But he did not advocate by this a free-for-all, anything goes individualitsic approach. Far from it. He understood the place, indeed, the necessity, for the community interpretation of scripture. 

In the 1840s, when he realized churches were not flocking to his banner of unity and the millennium wasn't coming, Campbell expressed the aims of his reformation in terms of "the catholic rule of union." In an ecumenical meeting at Lexington, Kentucky in 1841, he stated: "Whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union." He often expressed this "catholic rule for unity" in terms of the seven "facts" of Ephesians 4:4-6 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all).

But even as early as 1830 Campbell was saying essentially the same thing. In 1830 Baptist pastor Robert B. Semple, who had met Campbell in 1825 and was personally impressed with him, yet not convinced regarding his "ancient order," which Semple termed a "new gospel," wrote a letter to the MH asking him for more specifics.  Campbell responded in part by by saying:

I think I told you when parting in Essex, that if you and I should never approximate nigher to each other in our views, I would nevertheless still love and esteem you as a christian--as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. Since parting with you I have found this affection and esteem increase; and your letter before me is a new excitement to the cultivation of all brotherly kindness and charity. It gives me pain to have to differ in a single opinion from one whom I venerate so highly; and glad would I be if I could say a hearty Amen to every sentiment in your letter. . . .

"One consolation I have, that you and I believe all the same gospel facts. We believe every fact which Paul called the glad tidings, viz. that "Jesus died for our sins; that he was buried; and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures." Nay, we are equally assured of all facts in the gospel history, and consequently are of one faith.  I do not think there is one historic fact in all the testimonies of the four Evangelists in which our faith is not the same. We are not only of one faith,  but we agree in one immersion also. You say that we are buried with Christ in immersion, and raised with him; and that in this act we put him on.  We do not differ in the one Lord--in the one God--in the one body--in the one Spirit, which animates that one body; and in the one hope of a glorious resurrection from the dead.  In some points of view we differ on some of these unities; or, rather, we view them with more or less distinctness and force. We pray to the same God and Father, through the same Lord and Saviour, and by the same Holy Spirit. In a word, we agree in a thousand things, constituents and connectives of the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Ages of the world. But we differ in the strength or weakness--in the latitude or longitude of our conceptions of some matters and things connected with, or proceeding from the seven unities. . . .

So Campbell came to view unity to be based upon the essentials of Ephesians 4, and he defined heresy not so much as wrong doctrine, than as trying to force one's private interpretations of nonessentials on others. Campbell urged his brethren "Let us still acknowledge all to be our brethren, who believe in the Lord Jesus, and humbly and honestly obey him, as far as they know his will."


And in 1847, Campbell expressed his general approbation of the newly-formed Protestant Evangelical Alliance, and sent his son-in-law WK Pendleton as a representative and correspondent for the Disciples. Richardson described Campbell's views:

"About this period the 'Evangelical Alliance,' designed to promote the union of Christians, attracted much of Mr. Campbell's attention, and was hailed by him with great satisfaction as an indication of the approach of a better era. As to the basis of union which it proposed, he expressed a substantial agreement, though objecting to some of the expressions employed as unscriptural. He pointed out the resemblance of the movement to that of the "Christian Association" in Washington in 1809, which, like the Evangelical Alliance, assumed not the character of a church, but of a society to promote union among Christians, and remarked, at the close of his article:

”I said at the beginning, I say at the close, of my notice of the Evangelical Alliance, that I thank God and take courage at every effort, however imperfect it may be, to open the eyes of the community to the impotency and wickedness of schism, and to impress upon the conscientious and benevolent portion of the Christian profession the excellency, the beauty and the necessity of co-operation in the cause of Christ as prerequisite to the diffusion of Christianity throughout the nations of the earth.

”The Reformation for which we plead grew out of a conviction of the enormous evils of schism and partyism, and the first article ever printed by any of the co-operants in the present effort was upon the subject of the necessity, practicability and excellency of Christian union and communion, in order to the purification and extension of the Christian profession. The abjuration of human creeds as roots of bitterness and apples of discord, as the permanent causes of all sectarianism, was set forth as a preliminary step to the purification of the Church and the conversion of the world. The restoration of a pure speech, or the giving of Bible names to Bible ideas, followed in its train, and from these standing-points we have been led step by step to our present position, each one of the prime movers adding to the common stock something of importance, until matters have issued in one of the most extensive moral and ecclesiastical movements and revolutions of the present age.” (A. Campbell's views on the Evangelical Alliance, from Robert Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Volume II, Chapter XVII)


If all one read were Campbell's Christian System one would have a very limited, one-sided view of him.

Campbell says this in the preface to the second, 1839 edition of The Christian System:

We speak for ourselves only; and while we are always willing to give a declaration of our faith and knowledge of the Christian system, we firmly protest against dogmatically propounding our own views, or those of any fallible mortal, as a condition or foundation of church union and co-operation.

Campbell made a distinction between self-evident "essential" truths in scripture, and less-clear, non-essential doctrines. He honestly believed his "system" was the best, most scriptural one, but as the quote above illustrates, was unwilling to be dogmatic that he, and only he, was right. For example, he united with Barton Stone's churches in 1832 despite some huge differences  they had. Stone disagreed with some of the points in Campbell's "ancient order." Yet Campbell owned him as a brother.

In 1824, in an article entitled "The Foundation of Hope and of Christian Union" Campbell wrote:

"The one fact is, that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah. The evidence upon which it is to be believed is the testimony of twelve men, confirmed by prophecy, miracles, and spiritual gifts. The one institution is baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Every such person is a christian [sic] in the fullest sense of the word, the moment he has believed this one fact, upon the above evidence, and has submitted to the above mentioned institution; and whether he believes the five points condemned or the five points approved by the synod of Dort, is not so much as to be asked of him; whether he holds any of the views of the Calvinists or Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, or Quakers, is never once to be asked of such a person, in order to admission into the christian [sic] community, called the church." (A. Campbell, "The Foundation of Hope and of Christian Union," Christian Baptist, April 5, 1824)

And to a German Baptist, Bro. Jake Hostetter (whose churches eventually united with Campbell's in 1828), writing to him in 1826 Campbell wrote:

"DEAR BROTHER--FOR such I recognize you, notwithstanding the varieties of opinion which you express on some topics, on which we might never agree. But if we should not, as not unity of opinion, but unity of faith, is the only true bond of christian [sic] union, I will esteem and love you, as I do every man, of whatever name, who believes sincerely that Jesus is the Messiah, and hopes in his salvation. And as to the evidence of this belief and hope, I know of none more decisive than an unfeigned obedience, and willingness to submit to the authority of the Great King." (A. Campbell, "A Reply to the Above" [Campbell's response to German Baptist Jake Hostetter, whose association of Dunkard churches united with Campbell's churches in 1828], CB, March 6, 1826; Hostetter had asked Campbell about foot-washing, the holy kiss and frequency of communion, expressing slightly different views than Campbell)

In 1826 he wrote this:

"This plan of making our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the "elect few" who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism. . . . To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle; to associate with a few units, tens, or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical nunnery." (A. Campbell, "To an independent Baptist," CB May 1, 1826)

What Campbell was opposed to more than anything was sectarianism. He was willing to make allowances for sincere differences of opinion on non-essentials, and even for mistaken views of what he considered essentials, as long as he could see that people were dedicated to obeying Christ to the best of their ability and level of knowledge of his word.

So that's why I don't believe Campbell was only, or even primarily, a restorationist. The above is a somewhat simplified explanation, but I think essentially correct.

Pax.

[Barabbas]

Lee, I respect your historical knowledge of the restoration movement.  You've shown Campbell to be a complex individual with sometimes conflicting views.  I agree he was sufficiently complex enough for it to be difficult to nail him down sometimes.  If he weren't complex he would be shallow, and that he is not.

The problem I see with some of his writings are these conflicting views.  Often he comes across as sectarian with the belief in the ancient order and all that.  Then he comes across as very ecumenical.  I see these as mutually exclusive views that lead to the the divisions that has characterized protestant Christianity - and the divisions in the restoration movement in particular.  No one agrees on what is essential (including the nature of the death, burial and resurrection if one takes a more existential bent.) 

Campbell was not the beginning of ecumenism.  Europe, weary of all the religious wars that took place, and the conflict between Calvanists and Lutherans, created ecumenical moves of their own.  In 1817 the Prussian Union was created by the Prussian King weary of all the arguing about the nature of the Eucharist betweem Calvanist and Lutherans.  This church body was open to diversity and aimed only at a broad consensus of evangelical faith.  Their slogan:

In essentials unity,
In non-essentials liberty,
In all things charity.

This was a slogan later adopted by other religious leaders - including those in the restoration movement.  My point here is that there has always been a movement to ecumenism by some and essentials or "Truth" as they define it by others.  It wasn't something new with the declaration and address.  And at the very beginnings of it it took a very provincial view as witnessed by Campbell's negativity to the Catholic Church.  Even the last ecumenical quote that you listed has a anti-catholic bias.

"This plan of making our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the "elect few" who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism. . . . To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle; to associate with a few units, tens, or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical nunnery." (A. Campbell, "To an independent Baptist," CB May 1, 1826)

My point is that he was only talking to a very narrow band of Christianity from the very beginning... that is  he was talking to other protestants that had a rational, Lockean approach to scripture.   I'm not saying he wasn't persuasive, I think if I had lived in Tennessee in the 1800's I would have been persuaded as well.  But now having a much broader view of history and the world afforded by modern tools of scholarship, we can put him in better perspective.

[Lee Freeman]

Again, I believe his ecumenical bent was always there, its just that people can't see it because they don't understand that he intended his quest for the ancient order as a means for achieving unity and not an end in itself. As for his views on Roman Catholicism, his criticism was reserved for the system, not the people in it, such as Archbishop John Baptiste Purcell, whom he debated in 1837. Campbell and Purcell became good friends as a result of that debate, with Purcell predicting that Campbell's name would go down in Protestant history books as a champion of Protestantism. Campbell was a product of his age and his anti-Catholic views were the norm among Protestant Evangelicals in America. But his views were softened somewhat by his debate with Purcell.

Of course Campbell was not the originator of ecumenism, however he was its biggest champion at a time in which sectarianism held sway and different denominations were in competition for members. Campbell considered himself continuing the Reformation begun by Luther and Calvin.

Pax.

[DCR]

Again, I believe his ecumenical bent was always there, its just that people can't see it because they don't understand that he intended his quest for the ancient order as a means for achieving unity and not an end in itself.

I was just looking at some other information however, and according to what Campbell wrote in his first issue of The Millennial Harbinger, his goal was apparently the "developement [sic], and introduction of that political and religious order of society called THE MILLENNIUM..."

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tmh/MH0101.HTM

BETHANY, VIRGINIA:
MONDAY, JANUARY, 4, 1830.

PROSPECTUS.

      THIS work shall be devoted to the destruction of Sectarianism, Infidelity, and Antichristian doctrine and practice. It shall have for its object the developement, and introduction of that political and religious order of society called THE MILLENNIUM, which will be the consummation of that ultimate amelioration of society proposed in the Christian Scriptures.

      Subservient to this comprehensive object, the following subjects shall be attended to:

      1. The incompatibility of any sectarian establishment, now known on earth, with the genius of the glorious age to come.

      2. The inadequacy of all the present systems of education, literary and moral, to develope the powers of the human mind, and to prepare man for rational and social happiness.

      3. The disentanglement of the Holy Scriptures from the perplexities of the commentators and system-makers of the dark ages. This will call for the analysis of several books in the New Testament, and many disquisitions upon the appropriated sense of the leading terms and phrases in the Holy Scriptures and in religious systems.

      4. The injustice which yet remains in many of the political regulations under the best political governments, when contrasted with the justice which Christianity proposes, and which the millennial order of society promises.

      5. Disquisitions upon the treatment of African slaves, as preparatory to their emancipation, and exaltation from their present degraded condition.

      6. General religions news, or regular details of the movements of the religious combinations, acting under the influence of the proselyting spirit of the age.

      7. Occasional notices of religious publications, including Reviews of new works, bearing upon any of the topics within our precincts.

      8. Answers to interesting queries of general utility, and notices of all things of universal interest to all engaged in the proclamation of the Ancient Gospel, and a restoration of the Ancient Order of Things.

      9. Miscellanea, or religious, moral, and literary varieties.

This particular publication was, according to his own words, "devoted to the destruction of Sectarianism, Infidelity, and Antichristian doctrine and practice."  The destruction of sectarianism was certainly one leg of his goals.  But, I'm not sure everything was geared toward simply that end and that this was the pivot of what he wanted to do.  Rather, the destruction of sectarianism was just one ingredient in a bigger set of goals.  It appears that the bigger picture here was his vision of what almost appears to be some sort of utopian church/political society.

Maybe, I'm not grasping everything being said in this older style of writing, but there are some pretty radical things stated here.  Some of it good (he was apparently for the abolition of slavery), some of it maybe a bit idealistic, but some of it is a tad bit alarming.  I probably need to read this further to gain a better understanding of it all.

But, what are your thoughts about Campbell's statements here?  It is hard to single Campbell out in the era of the 19th Century, as it was an age of social and political revolution, radicalism, and utopianism.  But, when we talk of ecumenism today, I'm not sure we're necessarily on the same page as Campbell, at least at the time of this publication.

[Lee Freeman]

Campbell was a postmillennialist and did believe that the unity of the Church would speed the spread of the gospel, which in turn would speed the inauguration of the millennium. His view of human achievement and progress was basically optimistic, whereas Stone's (who leaned toward premillennialism) was more negative. However Campbell later pretty much abandoned his hope of seeing the millennium when the unity of the Church wasn't achieved. He never actually wrote much about it to begin with, even though it was the basis for much of his thinking. The millennium actually gets scant mention in Richardson's biography of Campbell.

Though he was postmillennial Campbell refused to particularize and set specific times and dates-he thought the time was probably soon, but didn't go to the extremes of people like Miller of the Seveth Day Baptists or Russel of the Watchtower and actually prophesy or predict a specific date(s).

Most other leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement, such as Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, and James A. Harding, were Premillennial, or leaned towards it, though it was classical premillennialism and not Darby's newfangled Dispensationalist Zionist Premillennialism. They were also generally opposed to slavery and pacifistic, and urged Christian non-involvement in government. The early Stone-Campbell Movement was decidedly counter-cultural.

Foy Wallace, Jr. and others in the 1930s opposed the earlier premillennialist, pacifistic views of the founders and of Robert H. Boll and his mentor, the venerable David Lipscomb. Wallace actually urged anyone with a copy of Lipscomb's 1889 book Civil Government to burn it, as it was "as rank with false doctrine as one little book of its size could be." GC Brewer (who like Boll had also been a student of David Lipscomb at his and James Harding's Nashville Academy) and JN Armstrong refused to take sides in the premil. controversy or denounce Bro. Boll, and found themselves at odds with the Wallace camp. Boll, for his part, did not make his premil theology a test of fellowship and always tried to respond to his critics with grace and charity, and some of his churches with their decidely premil., pacifistic, non-involvement-in-government theology, managed to hold out until the 1950s.

I'm not premil or amil but it does sadden me to think that this segment of our movement was basically persecuted into non-existence.

So yes, Campbell hoped that the unity of the Church would speed the progress of the gospel throughout the world and help to usher in the millennium.

Pax.