Purpose of Restoration Movement

[s1n4m1n]

What was the purpose of the restoration movement as taught by A. Campbell and others? Has this purpose been achieved?

Please provide source material, if possible.

Thanks,

Ken

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, I don't think it was as much a restoration movement as a reformation. Stone, the Campbells, Robert Richardson and their peers referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the Current Reformation." As late as 1889, F D Srygley was still calling it the "current reformation."

Richardson summed up their aims in his article "Reformation No. IV" in the MH of 1847:

Were we, indeed asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive, the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it, a generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the disinctions which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements; the generalities; the universalities; which promote harmony and peace. (I think I got that right-I'm quoting from memory.)

Stone wrote:

Let the unity of Christians be our polar star.

None of the early fathers claimed to be restoring the non-existent NT church. They did claim to be trying to unify true Christians from among all the orthodox sects into the preexistent church.

Campbell believed unity could best be achieved by restoring the essential teachings/doctrines of the ancient faith; see his The Christian System.

I don't think we've come anywhere near achieving their aims; Stone said that if the movement ever divided it would lose its credibility to urge Christian union upon the Bible alone. How many times have we split now?

Pax vobiscum.

[charlie]

There is some current discussion about efforts to unite the Anglican Communion with the Methodist churches. Back in Wesley's day, the Methodists would go to their Cof E assemblies in the morning and then to their Methodist meetings in the evening. John Wesley himself said that he would die an Anglican (and he did). Now, there is talk about re-uniting the two groups that, since Wesley's time, have separated. The main issue is over ordination of ministers. Anglicans still claim apostolic succession, that is, a supposedly unbroken line of ordination of clergy back to the apostles. While they do have open communion (any baptized believer can come to an AC church and celebrate communion) in order for them to have full communion with Methodists, the Methodist ministers will need to be 'ordained' by Anglican bishops. IOW, ministers of a 260 year tradition will need to get hands laid on them to be able to administer the sacraments (baptism and communion). While everyone agrees this is just a nod to the establishment, the fact remains that they can't just shrug it off as unnecessary without completely dishonoring their heritage. Methodists going to Anglicans for ordination would be basically saying that they weren't REALLY ministers until then. Anglicans who just accept the administration of Methodist ministers would be basically saying that apostolic succession is trivial.

I say all this to make this point... Anglicans and Methodists believe that both groups are saved Christians. Their goal is not evangelism, but reconciliation between two already-evangelized groups. The point is not that we need to make some better group, anathematize all others, and then go on a massive evangelistic crusade to save the lost pseudo-Christians (and by the way, if you aren't evangelistic, then you don't really believe that you're the only saved group). The point to the Restoration Movement was uniting the brother and sister Christians in their divided groups by teaching and encouraging the original plan for the church, not building a new church based on the NT for everyone to then join in order to be saved. It's basically the same goal as the Methodists, or earlier, the Lutherans. Reform, not revolt. Both groups had a mind to improve the existing church, and both groups did not break off from their parent church until the leader of their movement died. When the cat's away, and all that...

If I read the Declaration right, the dissolving of the Springfield Presbytery wasn't a break from the Presbyterian Church, but a move of inclusion with every other Christian in the world.

[Lee Freeman]

Charlie's right, both Stone and the Campbells began their respective unity movements from within the established Presbyterian Church with absolutely no thought of creating another sect and adding it to the already extensive list; had they not been forced out of that church they'd have remained Presbyterians working toward unity. When their unity efforts were rebuffed by the Presbyterians, they united with the Baptists, until the Baptists forced them into their own independent church.

Stone's Springfield Presbytery in it's Last Will and Testament dissolved and attempted to merge with/into the church at large.

Pax vobiscum.

[s1n4m1n]

I'll have to investigate the sources (primarily A. Campbell) but I believe the idea of inaugurating the millenium was also a goal of the early RM. In fact, I think the unity part was viewed as something that was inevitable because of the approaching "Golden Age" and "the restoration of the ancient order" was how that unity would occur.

Ken

[charlie]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I'll have to investigate the sources (primarily A. Campbell) but I believe the idea of inaugurating the millenium was also a goal of the early RM.[/quote]

Sure! Why not? I mean, there had to be some impetus behind the restoration movement besides strained conversations at family gatherings and unpleasantness among professed Christians. There really was the idea that, if the church united and became what it ought to be that the Holy Spirit would finally be unleashed in this world and unbounded reformation would take place in all lands. Exciting prospect, don't you think? However, thanks to the tireless efforts of anti-millenialists in our movement in the 20th C (Foy Wallace, et. al) the hope of the existance of any earthly kingdom of God, and the desire to unite all Christians was effectively stamped out of the churches of Christ. Until now. Now at least there is some renewed popular interest in trans-denominational unity. Perhaps the reason why it is so slow in taking off is a lack of ultimate vision. Campbell and Stone saw the end to their efforts as the ushering in of the millenial reign of Christ. What is our ultimate goal? When we finally unite, what then? Anything? What happens when the dog finally catches that car he's been chasing?

[s1n4m1n]

Charlie,

So are you saying that unity should only be a means to an end instead of the end goal itself? I think that is correct. Jesus in his unity prayer said unity was so others could come to belief.

For the most part modern day churches of Christ have abandoned any goal of unity or some coming "thousand year Golden Age".

Ken

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, you're right. Campbell's millennial views played a key role in his ministry-at least the early years, as the name of his second paper, the Millennial Harbinger, attests. Campbell believed that the union of Christians would be instrumental in helping to usher in Christ's millennial kingdom, however, when that unity wasn't achieved and the movement itself began to fracture, Campbell lost his preoccupation with the millennium.

The modern coC claims to still value the Stone-Campbell goal of unity, but, instead of Stone's and the Campbell's plea for a unity on the essentials of the ancient faith, churches of Christ insist that true unity can only be achieved when the "denomoinations" accept what the church of Christ views as the plain teaching of Scripture on the NT pattern for the work and worship of the church, which includes everything from selection of elders to frequency of communion to acapella music to baptism by immersion for the remission of sins-that being the most important doctrine of all, our "chief cornerstone," if you will; Jesus, who according to scripture is the chief cornerstone, and the doctrine of the corss, usually get lost in the shuffle.

I agree, too, unity is the means, not the end; imagine if there were just the one church, of which every Christian was a member. Our Christian witness would be greatly bolstered by that.


Pax vobiscum.

[seekr]

If all the denominations became one, do we believe that would be the unity Jesus sopke of? It sounds a little more like some of thepoular movies and books that put all the churches together in the end times.

Unity is not achieved by some effort of bringing denominations together, but by us loving one another with God's love. There is nothing to restore as there are those who have been actively loving anyway. We just too often, look at the organizations for what is happening as opposed to its people, silently serving one another.

seekr

[Lee Freeman]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (seekr @ Jan. 09 2004,12:50)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If all the denominations became one, do we believe that would be the unity Jesus sopke of? It sounds a little more like some of thepoular movies and books that put all the churches together in the end times.

Unity is not achieved by some effort of bringing denominations together, but by us loving one another with God's love. There is nothing to restore as there are those who have been actively loving anyway. We just too often, look at the organizations for what is happening as opposed to its people, silently serving one another.

seekr[/quote]
Barton Stone's "fire union," the union of Christians by and through the Holy Spirit.