Christian Forums

Good observations, Barabbas.

I think there can be a temptation to put a revisionist spin back on Campbell and the other early leaders or the RM... reinventing him in our own idealistic image of what we thought he should be.

It was by no means simply a warm, fuzzy, "I'm okay/you're okay" unity movement... even if certain sectors weren't as hardline as they would later become.

I've always thought that the key to Campbell was his rationalism (and I'll admit to, at one point in my life, reading John Locke because of his influence on Campbell).  In a sense, I wonder if the whole problem wasn't that humans weren't as rational as the enlightenment philosophers assumed.  Rationalism can even be something that we use to fool ourselves into thinking that the things we believe are right.  We tend to use reason to reverse-engineer our opinions as often as we use it to create opinions in the first place.

The problem with rationalism is that it doesn't necessarily conclusively answer all questions.  And, all those who employ it don't necessarily come to all the same conclusions on every matter.

Now, that's just irrational.  Of course you'll all come to the same conclusions I have. 



  Mischief--it's all I have time to offer at the moment, though I appreciate reading the discussion.

I'm not so sure that the movement has failed, but there are good reasons why it has not been more effective:

It started out preaching unity, but the unifiers ended up dividing.

It started out as a rebellion against tradition, yet it ended up inventing new traditions.

It started out as a back-to-the-Bible movement, but now most members don't regularly read their Bibles.

It began in protest against the exaltation of men, but it ended up simply exalting different men.

It began by preaching local autonomy, yet now many local congregations want to tell other congregations what to/not to do.

It began with an emphasis on sacred principles instead of personalities, but ended up demonizing people who didn't share their principles.

Should I go on?   

Quote from: Howie26 on Fri Nov 16, 2007 - 11:35:53
You cannot be clueless and accept the message of Jesus. 

No, but you can certainly be clueless and go through the motions, and say and do all of the "right" things and fool everyone into thinking you're converted. 

I know.  I did it for 28 years.

Why is this such a mystery to you people?  Oil and water do not mix.

Folks who do not share the same fundamentals regarding the faith can never be united, no matter how much they try to fake it.

And they shouldn't be united.  Or even try.

Truth cannot tolerate error.

Example:  How can anyone be united with the Disciples of Christ (DoC's), when so many of them accept not only homosexuals, but homosexuality itself?

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Sat Aug 16, 2008 - 21:30:20
Why is this such a mystery to you people?  Oil and water do not mix.

Folks who do not share the same fundamentals regarding the faith can never be united, no matter how much they try to fake it.

And they shouldn't be united.  Or even try.

Truth cannot tolerate error.

Example:  How can anyone be united with the Disciples of Christ (DoC's), when so many of them accept not only homosexuals, but homosexuality itself?

Robert G

I pray that God doesn't judge as harshly as you, and you should too, because I know I'm not error-free and I'm about 98.3% sure that you're not either.

On another note, an old, old post seemed to compare this issue of unity to the "different parts" passage saying some were ears, eyes, feet, etc.  I don't think that' what this passage means.  I don't think a dissected body works very well.

Quote from: marc on Sat Aug 16, 2008 - 21:47:42
I pray that God doesn't judge as harshly as you

What was he judgmental about?   

For the full meaning of his post, check his posting history.  He's working from the supposition that some members of the Church of Christ are the only ones going to Heaven. That's the subtext behind "Truth doesn't fellowship with error." 

Quote from: janine on Wed Nov 14, 2007 - 09:26:25
how many of you who would gladly accept as saved and Christ's, no worries, anyone who did not think he needed to be baptized

Don't understand your question, janine.

Jesus commands us to be baptized.  That means to be immersed in water.  That doesn't leave a whole lot to discuss or misinterpret.  And it also isn't hard to do, for crying out loud.     Why would anyone who wanrts to follow God, not do it?

Me, I was immersed in the Pacific Ocean on Oct 22, 1990.

Quote from: Johnb on Mon Nov 12, 2007 - 16:06:30
2. Campbell's theology was turned into a ridged pattern theology.

His theology was ridged?     Sort of like Ruffles potato chips? 

Quote from: Barabbas on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 10:22:18

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 09:30:47

Quote from: Johnb on Mon Nov 12, 2007 - 16:06:30
I have researched and wondered over the years as to why our 19th century unity movement failed.  I was intended to be a unity movement.

    PROP. 1. THAT the church of Christ upon earth is essentially,
     intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in
   every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him
   in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same
   by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can be
   truly and properly called christians.
From Thomas Campbells declaration and address.

Here are some of the reasons I believe it failed.

1.  It was turned into a restoration movement

2. Campbell's theology was turned into a ridged pattern theology.

3. Men's desire for an intitution and power and authority.

4. The inability to understand God's grace

What think ye?  Later Johnb 

I think me that ye speaketh aright. Thou has verily hit the nail upon the head.

Our Movement became exactly the very kind of exclusivist, sectarian group that Stone and the Campbells were trying to get away from. We traded grace and inclusiveness for law and exclusiveness.

Pax.

I think Campbell believed in restoration from the very beginning as evidenced by his preface in his tome "The Christian System" that I have referred to before:

SINCE the full development of the great apostacy foretold by Prophets and Apostles, numerous attempts at reformation have been made. Three full centuries, carrying with them the destinies of countless millions, have passed into eternity since the Lutheran effort to dethrone the Man of Sin. During this period many great and wonderful changes have taken place in the political, literary, moral, and religious conditions of society. That the nations composing the western half of the Roman empire have already been greatly benefited by that effort, scientifically, politically, and morally, no person acquainted with either political or ecclesiastical history can reasonably doubt. Time, that great arbiter of human actions, that great revealer of secrets, has long decided that all the reformers of the Papacy have been public benefactors. And thus the Protestant Reformation is proved to have been one of the most splendid eras in the history of the world, and must long be regarded by the philosopher and the philanthropist as one of the most gracious interpositions in behalf of the whole human race.

Campbell's theology was provincial enough that in effect he was only talking to the Protestant divisions - RCC and Orthodox be damned.  Belief in the "great Apostacy" was a foregone conclusion in these Protestant camps and Campbell was only talking to them.  Campbell might have not been as rigid as some of his successors - but the seeds of sectarianism were there in the beginning.

With respect, you have to read more than Campbell's  Christian System to understand his theology, because it wasn't static. And notice that he doesn't use the term restoration but reformation. Campbell considered himself a reformer, continuing the Reformation begun by Luther and Calvin, which he thought hadn't gone far enough. Restoration was one tool he thought he could use to help achive that end and unite the church.

For Campbell restoration was a means to an end-that end as I said being unity. But he says very plainly in the preface to the 2nd ed. that he doesn't intend to make his views in the CS a test of fellowship. He believed they were the best,. most accurate ones, yet refused to be dogmatic that he and only he was right. As proof of this is the fact that he united with groups like the Stoneites and German Dunkards who disagreed with several points of his "ancient order." By the late 1830s he had moved away from a restorationist platform to one of a "catholic unity"  based upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4. He was willing, at least in theory, to include individual Roman Catholics within that unity, so long as they did not use their specifically RC doctrines as tests of fellowship. Not sure many were willing to take him up on it, but he was at least willing to concede the possibility that there were saved Christians within the Church of Rome and he would own them as brothers, at least in the sense he used in his response to the Lunenburg letter of 1837.

As early as the 1820s, Campbell recognized that some of his younger, more zealous disciples were getting a bit carried away with restoration, as if it were the raison d'etre of the movement and as if anyone who didn't sign on board with their specific restorationist platform was not a true Christian. Campbell tried to curb this however was largely unsuccessful. But it didn't really get bad until the late 1800s. And even then, leaders like TB Larimore and FD Srygley were willing to extend fellowship to people "outside the box" as it were.

So Campbell's Christian System must be viewed in context, in light of all his other writings and publications.


Pax.

Quote from: DCR on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 10:57:21
It was by no means simply a warm, fuzzy, "I'm okay/you're okay" unity movement... even if certain sectors weren't as hardline as they would later become.

I have a shirt that one of my students had made for me.  It has a saying I often use.  The front says "I'm Okay. You're Okay" with a big NOT-Sign around it.  On the back it says "Truth is: I'm a Mess and I think You're an even Bigger Mess!" 

Humility draws us together; pride cuts us off from one another!

Quote from: DCR on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 10:57:21
Good observations, Barabbas.

I think there can be a temptation to put a revisionist spin back on Campbell and the other early leaders or the RM... reinventing him in our own idealistic image of what we thought he should be.

It was by no means simply a warm, fuzzy, "I'm okay/you're okay" unity movement... even if certain sectors weren't as hardline as they would later become.

That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Pax.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:54:58
That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Hey, I've got a wild idea: How about, we forget about Campbell and the rest, and just teach Bible truths?   

Then if it happens to agree with Campbell, wonderful; but if not, let the Word prevail.  Otherwise, we're just exalting men and tradition, and isn't that the very thing that Campbell  & Co. preached against?

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:09:33

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:54:58
That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Hey, I've got a wild idea: How about, we forget about Campbell and the rest, and just teach Bible truths?  

Then if it happens to agree with Campbell, wonderful; but if not, let the Word prevail.  Otherwise, we're just exalting men and tradition, and isn't that the very thing that Campbell  & Co. preached against?

Good for you, Steve!

I've tried for years to get Lee Freeman to forget about Stone/Campbell, and lean on the Bible alone for his faith and practice.  No luck.  He simply cannot function with the Bible alone and what it says as his authority.

Maybe you can do better.

Robert G

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:09:33

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:54:58
That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Hey, I've got a wild idea: How about, we forget about Campbell and the rest, and just teach Bible truths?  

Then if it happens to agree with Campbell, wonderful; but if not, let the Word prevail.  Otherwise, we're just exalting men and tradition, and isn't that the very thing that Campbell  & Co. preached against?

Given the title of the thread and all, Campbell and other such guys are a legitimate part of the discussion.  If the title of thread is something like "99 undeniable biblical truths", then, yeah, give them the boot.

Nick and Gus, please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against the early RM leaders.  And Freeman is a good resource to have, with his historical knowledge.  But the RM names do seem to come up an awful lot here in the boards.

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:45:54
Nick and Gus, please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against the early RM leaders.  And Freeman is a good resource to have, with his historical knowledge.  But the RM names do seem to come up an awful lot here in the boards.

This thread is within what is called "Restoration Movement Forum", so what did you expect?  It's like going to a Giants history forum and getting on to someone for talking about Willie Mays.  As for the Campbells, of all the people throughout history who have studied the bible and shared with others what they believe they have gleaned, Thomas and Alexander are two of them.

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:17:54

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:09:33

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:54:58
That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Hey, I've got a wild idea: How about, we forget about Campbell and the rest, and just teach Bible truths?  

Then if it happens to agree with Campbell, wonderful; but if not, let the Word prevail.  Otherwise, we're just exalting men and tradition, and isn't that the very thing that Campbell  & Co. preached against?

Good for you, Steve!

I've tried for years to get Lee Freeman to forget about Stone/Campbell, and lean on the Bible alone for his faith and practice.  No luck.  He simply cannot function with the Bible alone and what it says as his authority.

Maybe you can do better.

Robert G

I can't understand what it matters to either of you what or how Lee presents his posts.  Robert G., you sound like a control freak.  Tried for years have you?  To get Lee to forget his sound historical context and lean only on the Bible?  Maybe you should put away the Spiritual Sword and Alan Highers, then..........

How can we ever be united together in mind and spirit if we can't agree together on a simple message forum?

For what it's worth, I find Lee's posts on the RM to be quite interesting and informative. I have some of the RM books he quotes from and have often thought of them as just "memories" of long ago...not reading them like I should. But on several occasions I have seen Lee quote something that sounds familiar and it causes me to go back to my library and read some more. The net result is that I come away with a nice perspective of what the early leaders of the movement were trying to achieve and it seems kind of refreshing to read it.

Whether or not anyone on this forum lives a spiritual life based on the teachings of men instead of the plain Scripture is an attack that is clearly not displaying unity in any sense of that word.


Just thinking out loud...

Oh yeah, manna to segell.....

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:45:54But the RM names do seem to come up an awful lot here in the boards.

I wonder why that is?  (Take a peek at the name of the forum where this thread is.  )

In a "Restoration Movement Forum," RM names are gonna have a tendency to come up in the discussion.

Quote from: Sherman Nobles on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:37:45

Quote from: DCR on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 10:57:21
It was by no means simply a warm, fuzzy, "I'm okay/you're okay" unity movement... even if certain sectors weren't as hardline as they would later become.

I have a shirt that one of my students had made for me.  It has a saying I often use.  The front says "I'm Okay. You're Okay" with a big NOT-Sign around it.  On the back it says "Truth is: I'm a Mess and I think You're an even Bigger Mess!" 

Humility draws us together; pride cuts us off from one another!

Sherman!   Love the shirt!!

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 15:11:48

Quote from: Barabbas on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 10:22:18

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 09:30:47

Quote from: Johnb on Mon Nov 12, 2007 - 16:06:30
I have researched and wondered over the years as to why our 19th century unity movement failed.  I was intended to be a unity movement.

    PROP. 1. THAT the church of Christ upon earth is essentially,
     intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in
   every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him
   in all things according to the scriptures, and that manifest the same
   by their tempers and conduct, and of none else as none else can be
   truly and properly called christians.
From Thomas Campbells declaration and address.

Here are some of the reasons I believe it failed.

1.  It was turned into a restoration movement

2. Campbell's theology was turned into a ridged pattern theology.

3. Men's desire for an intitution and power and authority.

4. The inability to understand God's grace

What think ye?  Later Johnb 

I think me that ye speaketh aright. Thou has verily hit the nail upon the head.

Our Movement became exactly the very kind of exclusivist, sectarian group that Stone and the Campbells were trying to get away from. We traded grace and inclusiveness for law and exclusiveness.

Pax.

I think Campbell believed in restoration from the very beginning as evidenced by his preface in his tome "The Christian System" that I have referred to before:

SINCE the full development of the great apostacy foretold by Prophets and Apostles, numerous attempts at reformation have been made. Three full centuries, carrying with them the destinies of countless millions, have passed into eternity since the Lutheran effort to dethrone the Man of Sin. During this period many great and wonderful changes have taken place in the political, literary, moral, and religious conditions of society. That the nations composing the western half of the Roman empire have already been greatly benefited by that effort, scientifically, politically, and morally, no person acquainted with either political or ecclesiastical history can reasonably doubt. Time, that great arbiter of human actions, that great revealer of secrets, has long decided that all the reformers of the Papacy have been public benefactors. And thus the Protestant Reformation is proved to have been one of the most splendid eras in the history of the world, and must long be regarded by the philosopher and the philanthropist as one of the most gracious interpositions in behalf of the whole human race.

Campbell's theology was provincial enough that in effect he was only talking to the Protestant divisions - RCC and Orthodox be damned.  Belief in the "great Apostacy" was a foregone conclusion in these Protestant camps and Campbell was only talking to them.  Campbell might have not been as rigid as some of his successors - but the seeds of sectarianism were there in the beginning.

With respect, you have to read more than Campbell's  Christian System to understand his theology, because it wasn't static. And notice that he doesn't use the term restoration but reformation. Campbell considered himself a reformer, continuing the Reformation begun by Luther and Calvin, which he thought hadn't gone far enough. Restoration was one tool he thought he could use to help achive that end and unite the church.

For Campbell restoration was a means to an end-that end as I said being unity. But he says very plainly in the preface to the 2nd ed. that he doesn't intend to make his views in the CS a test of fellowship. He believed they were the best,. most accurate ones, yet refused to be dogmatic that he and only he was right. As proof of this is the fact that he united with groups like the Stoneites and German Dunkards who disagreed with several points of his "ancient order." By the late 1830s he had moved away from a restorationist platform to one of a "catholic unity"  based upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4. He was willing, at least in theory, to include individual Roman Catholics within that unity, so long as they did not use their specifically RC doctrines as tests of fellowship. Not sure many were willing to take him up on it, but he was at least willing to concede the possibility that there were saved Christians within the Church of Rome and he would own them as brothers, at least in the sense he used in his response to the Lunenburg letter of 1837.

As early as the 1820s, Campbell recognized that some of his younger, more zealous disciples were getting a bit carried away with restoration, as if it were the raison d'etre of the movement and as if anyone who didn't sign on board with their specific restorationist platform was not a true Christian. Campbell tried to curb this however was largely unsuccessful. But it didn't really get bad until the late 1800s. And even then, leaders like TB Larimore and FD Srygley were willing to extend fellowship to people "outside the box" as it were.

So Campbell's Christian System must be viewed in context, in light of all his other writings and publications.


Pax.

No doubt, A.Campbell was a complex individual with sometimes conflicting statements.  That's why I said the seeds of sectarianism were there in the beginning.  I don't think he could see where his outlook would lead any more than Luther could see his 95 thesis would lead to a break with the Roman church. 

Ecumenism was a philosophical outlook that influenced Campbell's interpretation of the Bible.  I see him as a conflicted individual who often would write as if there were only one truth... which was the spirit of the age, but then would also write in very ecumenical terms.  His approach to the Bible was a very structured approach and very protestant.  I don't think he communicated very well with those who have a more traditional catholic approach to scripture, or those with a more pentecostal approach. 

Like the Bible, it seems that many can quote Campbell to suit their own theology - picking and choosing as they go.  I was merely quoting one aspect of his writings that were more sectarian.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:54:58

Quote from: DCR on Thu Aug 07, 2008 - 10:57:21
Good observations, Barabbas.

I think there can be a temptation to put a revisionist spin back on Campbell and the other early leaders or the RM... reinventing him in our own idealistic image of what we thought he should be.

It was by no means simply a warm, fuzzy, "I'm okay/you're okay" unity movement... even if certain sectors weren't as hardline as they would later become.

That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Pax.

I agree.

Still I think everyone makes a distinction somewhere.  I think A. Campbell even would draw the line between Christian and non-christian.  Would he be willing to call a Christian a Haitian who syncretized christianity with African religions and practiced voodoo?  Would he be willing to refer as christian one who practices certain aspects of Hinduism that incorporate Christianity into their worship?  Would he be comfortable with the other side of rationalism with the theology of Albert Schweitzer and other liberal theologians?  He's going to make a cutoff somewhere - and much of his writings seem to make this distinction at "Romanism" - but I agree he didn't explicitly say this.

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:17:54

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:09:33

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 - 16:54:58
That can work both ways, using revisionist spin to make Campbell and the early leaders out to be gung-ho sectarians only or primarily interested in restoration.

Hey, I've got a wild idea: How about, we forget about Campbell and the rest, and just teach Bible truths?  

Then if it happens to agree with Campbell, wonderful; but if not, let the Word prevail.  Otherwise, we're just exalting men and tradition, and isn't that the very thing that Campbell  & Co. preached against?

Good for you, Steve!

I've tried for years to get Lee Freeman to forget about Stone/Campbell, and lean on the Bible alone for his faith and practice.  No luck.  He simply cannot function with the Bible alone and what it says as his authority.

Maybe you can do better.

Robert G

Not everybody understands the Bible in the same way.  A study of history helps us understand why we think and interpret the way we do.   No interpretation exists in a vacuum - despite the wishful thinking that it does.

Tradition is only the opinions of many people over a long period of time.  It at least deserves a hearing.

A lack of awareness of history can make us believe that what we do dropped straight from heaven, and that verses we use to prove a point were always interpreted that way.  Just recently I listened as the "decently and in order" passage was used to say that we shouldn't request songs during a church service--not that such requests should be done with respect for one another, but that all of that should be worked out beforehand and during the service, all that's done should be pre-planned.

In other words, our traditions were viewed as the way things have always been done, and scripture was then applied to what we do, since it is obviously meant that way.

I believe that an understanding of history will go a long way toward allowing us to understand ourselves.

Quote from: marc on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 14:36:52
In other words, our traditions were viewed as the way things have always been done, and scripture was then applied to what we do, since it is obviously meant that way.

Yup.   

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:58:20
This thread is within what is called "Restoration Movement Forum", so what did you expect? 

My point exactly.

The title is, Why our unity movement failed?  Focusing on personalities (apart from Christ) is a good formula for any religious movement to stumble.

Quote from: stevehut on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 17:27:01

Quote from: Mere Nick on Wed Aug 20, 2008 - 05:58:20
This thread is within what is called "Restoration Movement Forum", so what did you expect? 

My point exactly.

The title is, Why our unity movement failed?  Focusing on personalities (apart from Christ) is a good formula for any religious movement to stumble.

Ok.  I think I see your point.  Yet, what this forum and the thread are called still means you will see names such as Alexander.
It shouldn't be a surprise.  If you were a preacher, or especially an elder, at a congregation for a good long time, you will probably leave an impact years after you have shuffled off this mortal coil.  Same goes for the entire Restoration Movement, what ever that is, exactly.

Oh yeah, the personalities thing.  Of course focusing on personalities will eventually cause problems in anything, not just religious movements.  Yet you can still work together if you keep focused on getting the job done.  My daughter is a softball pitcher.  There is a major personality clash between her and her catcher on the travel team.  Yet, they seem to be able to work together when there's a batter stepping into the box.  Same thing at our congregation.  Some folks get along better at a distance.

Some folks get along better at a distance.       Like being on the Forum?   

Growing up in the CofC it's hard to imagine being accused of focusing on individuals like Alexander Campbell.  In the neck o' woods of my youth we weren't even aware of his (or any other RM beginners) existence.  So staunch was the insistence we not glorify men.  I was an adult before I ever heard his name, and in that area still if you visited and quoted him you'd be greated with "Who's he and why should I care?"

More likely the Baptist preacher down the road mentions him more often.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Thu Aug 21, 2008 - 13:09:17
"Who's he and why should I care?"

That's one of the reasons I've always wondered why a guest speaker is brought in for those "gospel meetings".  I asked at a congregational meeting one time, or maybe just with the elders, I forget which, why a guest speaker is needed.  Is there something wrong with our current preacher?  Could 1/2 of 1% of the county name our preacher?  Why would a guest preacher draw anyone?

QuoteNo doubt, A.Campbell was a complex individual with sometimes conflicting statements.  That's why I said the seeds of sectarianism were there in the beginning.  I don't think he could see where his outlook would lead any more than Luther could see his 95 thesis would lead to a break with the Roman church. 

Ecumenism was a philosophical outlook that influenced Campbell's interpretation of the Bible.  I see him as a conflicted individual who often would write as if there were only one truth... which was the spirit of the age, but then would also write in very ecumenical terms.  His approach to the Bible was a very structured approach and very protestant.  I don't think he communicated very well with those who have a more traditional catholic approach to scripture, or those with a more pentecostal approach. 

Like the Bible, it seems that many can quote Campbell to suit their own theology - picking and choosing as they go.  I was merely quoting one aspect of his writings that were more sectarian.

True, Campbell was a complex individual and his thinking did evolve over time. There are those who believe he was an outright sectarian, or that he at least was responsible for the misunderstandings disciples of his like Fanning, Crighfield and Lard had of his agenda, but I'm not sure it can be all laid at his feet. Campbell makes statements in the CB and MH that indicate, to me at least, that he wanted to be as inclusive as possible without violating the letter or the spirit of the NT. His biggest sticking point was obviously baptism; he was uncomforatble extending fellowship to the "pious unimmersed" as he called them, but at the same time, was uncomfortable in saying they weren't Christians thus were totally excluded from any kind of fellowship. Many believe he was just wishy-washy.

It may be that I'm being too generous to Campbell, however I've discussed this several times with Bobby Valentine, who's more of a Campbell scholar than I am and he shares my assessment.

Pax.