This study will attempt to find the primary reasons for such a movement and the desired solutions to overcome these conditions. There will also be an attempt to examine the results of the movement as we experience them at the current time.

This abbreviated history is about the Stone–Campbell Restoration Movement that ultimately resulted in the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

(For clarification, it should be noted that some congregations mostly in the north-east of the USA are identified as “Churches of Christ” even though they use musical instruments in worship and are in fact what we generally know as Christian Churches (Independent))

Chapter 1

Some Background

            The apostasy of the church reached its climax in the crimes and corruptions of the Dark Ages. The Protestant Reformation followed:

  • Jan Huss (Bohemia), Jerome Savonarola (Italy) & John Wycliffe (England) denounced the corruptions of the papacy and gave their lives in martyrdom for the cause of reformation.
  • Luther denounced the pretensions of the Pope, restored the Bible to the people and expounded the doctrine of justification by faith.
  • Calvin proclaimed the sovereignty of God and his co-worker, John Knox, carried the torch of reformation into Scotland and England, resulting in the Presbyterian Church.
  • Later, John Wesley spoke out boldly against the formalism which had almost eaten the heart out of the Church of England, and urged a return to a personal piety and more consecrated Christian Living which resulted in the Methodist Church.

            By the time of 1800, there were more than 150 warring sects in both Europe and the USA. These were bitterly fighting against each other, making the mission of the Church largely ineffective.

The United States After the Revolutionary War

         The period just after the Revolutionary War left the country in a spiritual drought. The frontier west of the Allegheny Mountains was even worse since there was little enforced law. Such a condition was recognized by the leaders of almost every church group across the country and many were actively considering ways to address these spiritual conditions.

            Church leaders across the country sought solutions to the spiritual needs during the period from 1790 into the 1900’s. The result was a national period known as  “The Second Great Awakening”. There were two movements within this “Awakening” that led to what we recognize today as the Christian Church, the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ. This period was generally recognized as  “The Restoration Movement” and later as “The Stone-Campbell Movement”. This study will focus upon these two movements, their objectives and results.

            The Restoration Movement is a Christian movement that began on the United States frontier during the Second Great Awakening during the period of 1790–1840). The pioneers of this movement were seeking to reform the church from within and sought “the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament.” (Note: the primary goal was “Unity”.) History has shown that the desire to reform from “within” each of the religious groups was unsuccessful and the result was ultimately three new religious groups. 

            There were three more predominant leaders that were involved in the movement that we will address. These were; Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell and Alexander Campbell. (Several others such as Walter Scott, John Smith, James O’Kelley & Dr. Abner Jones were very instrumental in enhancing the movment, but not so much in the origin.)

            It is noteworthy to note that what we refer to as “a movement” was really a “plea” for (1) the unity of all Christians and (2) to restore the church to the condition that is described in the New Testament.

 

            It is also noteworthy to note that the  “Movement” was not & is not “A Church”, but is a movement within the church to address some specific characteristics. This “Plea” became a movement within several denominations, including Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist and possibly others.

Kentucky at that time following the Revolutionary War

(The “First Roots of the Movement)

The scene in southern Kentucky in the area of Logan County, just south of the current city of

Russellville in 1796-1798. (Kentucky was admitted into the union in 1796) At this time, one of the

roughest counties in Kentucky was Logan County. This county had attracted so many murderers, horse thieves, highway robbers and counterfeiters that the area was refereed to as “Rogues Harbor”. It was noted that one fourth of the currency in the United States was counterfeit at this time.

            The Scotch-Irish Presbyterian preacher James McGready came into the area in 1797-1798 to serve in three congregations; Muddy River, Red River & Gasper River. McGready found a dead formalism in the churches. In view of the spiritual deadliness he drew up a very solemn covenant for his congregations. Every Saturday evening, every Sunday morning, and one whole Sabbath of each month, for a year, were to be observed as a season of special prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Logan County, Kentucky, and throughout the world. To this covenant he obtained the signatures of his church members. (A portion of this covenant is noted below.)

“…When we consider the Word and promises of a compassionate God, to the poor lost family of

Adam, we find the strongest encouragement for Christians to pray in faith—to ask in the name of

Jesus for the conversion of their fellow men….With these promises before us, we feel encouraged

to unite our supplications to a prayer-hearing God, for the outpouring of His Spirit, that His

people may be quickened and comforted, and that our children and sinners generally may be

converted.”

            All those who signed the covenant agreed to pray every Saturday evening and Sunday morning and to devote the third Saturday of every month to prayer and fasting. After some time, it appeared that matters were actually getting worse and that their prayers were in vain. Still, McGready urged them to keep praying.

            Within a year, during a quarterly communion service at the Red River congregation, some of the most daring sinners in the country covered their faces and wept bitterly. A month later, a similar response occurred at the Gasper River church.

            What later became known as the Revival of 1800 began as a traditional Presbyterian sacramental occasion at the Red River Meeting House in June of the same year. As the revival spread to the congregations of McGready’s two other area congregations, several hundred people attended the

meetings, held from Friday through Tuesday. McGready’s other congregations were located at Muddy

River, and Gasper River. The meeting was a chance for the settlers to end their relative isolation for

several days and to engage with new people.

A letter from McGready to a friend dated October 23, 1801, described the meeting:

“In June, the sacrament was administered at Red River. This was the greatest time we had

ever seen before. On Monday multitudes were struck down under awful conviction; the cries of

the distressed filled the whole house. There you might see profane swearers, and Sabbath

breakers pricked to the heart, and crying out, “what shall we do to be saved?” There

frolickers, and dancers crying for mercy. There you might see little children of ten, eleven and

twelve years of age, praying and crying for redemption, in the blood of Jesus, in agonies of

distress. During this sacrament, and until the Tuesday following, ten persons we believe, were

savingly brought home to Christ.”

            The Great Revival which made such a great impact on the immediate area, “powerfully stimulated religious enterprise all over the United States.

            Within a year after the fires began to burn in the Red River section, the spirit of revival moved to the central region of Kentucky around Cane Ridge. On August 6, 1801, a large crowd gathered at the

church. It was a Presbyterian meeting, but Baptist and Methodist preachers came to join in. It seems

that Baptists did not take the active part that others did during these days, but nevertheless were

blessed greatly by the impact of revival.

            At these services people came in wagons. Since accommodations were not sufficient some people came in covered wagons, bringing provisions for several days. This was the beginning of camp meetings in this country. It is referred to as the forerunner of the first camp meeting in American church history.

            The first large camp meeting was the next month in the area of the Gasper River church. So popular did the method of encamping on the ground at the large meetings become, that it was adopted by the leaders as a means of stimulating revivals.

            By the end of 1800, much of Southwestern Kentucky and part of Tennessee had caught the revival fire, and it now spread northward. As reports spread, people traveled long distances to see for themselves what was happening.

            One of these persons was Barton W. Stone, pastor of the Presbyterian societies–at Concord and Cane Ridge, Bourbon County, Kentucky, who came to Logan County in 1801 to investigate the excitement. He had been a convert of McGready’s in North Carolina.

 

Chapter 2

The movement expands within Kentucky…

The Presbyterian minister Barton W. Stone learns of the Logan County Revival and visits to observe the effect upon the area.

After  observing the events, he wrote the following:

“There, on the edge of a prairie in Logan County, Kentucky, the multitudes came together and

continued a number of days and nights encamped on the ground, during which time worship

was carried on in some part of the encampment. The scene was new to me and passing

strange. It baffled description. Many, very many, fell down as men slain in battle, and

continued for hours together in an apparently breathless and motionless state, sometimes for a

few moments reviving and exhibiting symptoms of life by a deep groan or piercing shriek, or

by a prayer for mercy fervently uttered. After lying there for hours they obtained deliverance.

The gloomy cloud that had covered their faces seemed gradually and visibly to disappear, and

hope, in smiles, brightened into joy. They would rise, shouting deliverance, and then would

address the surrounding multitude in language truly eloquent and impressive. With

astonishment did I hear men, women, and children declaring the wonderful works of God and

the glorious mysteries of the gospel. Their appeals were solemn, heart-penetrating, bold, and

free. Under such circumstances many others would fall down into the same state from which

the speakers had just been delivered.”

            The movement then expanded and the primary focus moved from Logan County to Cane Ridge, near Paris, KY which is where most consider as the origin of the movement to restore the church as it

existed in the first century.

The Stone Movement (The Cane Ridge revival)

In 1801, the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky planted the seed for a movement in Kentucky and the Ohio River valley to disassociate from denominationalism. In 1803 Barton W. Stone and others withdrew from the Kentucky Presbytery and formed the Springfield Presbytery. The defining event of the Stone wing of the movement was the publication of Last Will and Testament of The Springfield Presbytery, at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, in 1804. The brief document announces their withdrawal from Presbyterianism and their intention to be solely part of the body of Christ. The writers appeal for the unity of all who follow Jesus, suggest the value of congregational self-governance, and declare the Bible as the source for understanding the will of God. They denounced the “divisive” use of the Westminster Confession of Faith and adopted the name “Christian” to identify their group.

[It should be noted that much of the focus of these church leaders was the attention given to “Religious Creeds” (Confessions of Faith) rather than to the Bible itself.] The return to using only the Bible was the common desire of each of the noted leaders.]

The Campbell Movement

(Some Campbell Background Trivia)

            The “roots” of the Campbell Movement actually began across the ocean in Scotland & Ireland. Thomas Campbell was a Presbyterian Minister whose health was failing and the result was that he was encouraged at the advice of his physician to move to the United States. He migrated to the U.S. In April 1807 to prepare for his family to follow at a later time. He left his son Alexander to care for the family and to follow him to the United States at a time when he had prepared for their arrival.

            Thomas was welcomed in the USA and granted a license to serve as Scottish Seceder Presbyterian Church. Sometime later in May 1807, Thomas serving in the rural area of western Pennsylvania  and was presiding at a a communion service. Since the frontier had a substantial shortage of ministers, he invited “all who felt disposed” to participate. (It is not clear whether he meant all Presbyterians or all Christians.) The result was that this act was reported to the Presbytery and his license was suspended in Oct. 1807. (What appears significant here is that Thomas seemed to recognize the Biblical teaching that each person should examine themselves as to their own worthiness of partaking the Lord’s Supper.)

            A most interesting observance is that Thomas’ son Alexander was to have a similar experience in the observance of the Lord’s Supper about 3,000 miles away in Ireland. This experience was that at the time scheduled for such an observance, all members of that Irish Presbyterian Church were to be interviewed by the Church leaders to determine if the member(s) were judged worthy to participate in this observance. (Alexander’s response seems to indicate that he had been pondering the teaching in 1 Cor. 11:23-30 that says that each person should examine themselves as to their worthiness.) Alexander was judged worthy and given a token that would allow him to participate. However when the time came, he deposed his token and left the assembly. (It should be noted that this act essentially separated him from that branch of the Presbyterian Church.)

         Both Thomas & Alexander were to share their struggles with these experiences on the subject of the Lord’s Supper with prevailing customs of judgment as compared with Biblical teaching and each had arrived at the same conclusion. (God’s Holy Spirit was apparently at work with both men.)

The Campbell Movement Begins 

            The Campbell wing of the movement was launched when Thomas Campbell published the Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington in 1809. The Presbyterian Synod had suspended his ministerial credentials for his serving communion to “other” Presbyterians that were not members of his synod.  In The Declaration and Address, he set forth some of his convictions about the church of Jesus Christ. He organized the Christian Association of Washington in Washington County, Pennsylvania on the western frontier of the state, not as a church but as an association of persons seeking to grow in faith.

            On May 4, 1811, the Christian Association reconstituted itself as a congregationally governed church. With the building it constructed at Brush Run, Pennsylvania, it became known as Brush Run Church. When their study of the New Testament led the reformers to begin to practice baptism by immersion, the nearby Redstone Baptist Association invited Brush Run Church to join with them for the purpose of fellowship. The reformers agreed, provided that they would be “allowed to preach and to teach whatever they learned from the Scriptures.” 

            Thomas’ son Alexander came to the U.S. to join him in 1809. Before long, he assumed the leading role in the movement.: The Campbells worked within the Redstone Baptist Association during the period 1815 through 1824. While both the Campbells and the Baptists shared practices of baptism by immersion and congregational polity, it quickly became clear the Campbells and their associates were not traditional Baptists. Within the Redstone Association, some of the Baptist leaders considered the differences intolerable when Alexander Campbell began publishing a journal, The Christian Baptist, which promoted reform. Campbell anticipated the conflict and moved his membership to a congregation of the Mahoning Baptist Association in 1824. In 1827, the Mahoning Association appointed Walter Scott as an evangelist. Through Scott’s efforts, the Mahoning Association grew rapidly. In 1828, Thomas Campbell visited several of the congregations formed by Scott and heard him preach. Campbell believed that Scott was bringing an important new dimension to the movement with his approach to evangelism. 

            Alexander used The Christian Baptist to address what he saw as the key issue of reconstructing the apostolic Christian community in a systematic and rational manner. He wanted to clearly distinguish between essential and non-essential aspects of primitive Christianity. Among what he identified as essential were “congregational autonomy, a plurality of elders in each congregation, weekly communion and immersion for the remission of sins.” Among practices he rejected as non-essential were “the holy kiss, deaconesses, communal living, footwashing and charismatic exercises.”

            Several Baptist associations began disassociating congregations that refused to subscribe to the Philadelphia Confession. The Mahoning Association came under attack. In 1830, The Mahoning Baptist Association disbanded. The younger Campbell ceased publication of the Christian Baptist. In January 1831, he began publication of the Millennial Harbinger.

            (One unfortunate item was characterized by many referred to Campbell’s followers as “Campbellites”.)

                                                                 Those of Like Mind

  • Alexander & Thomas Campbell were Presbyterians (Old Light, Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian) in Pennsyvania and Virginia (which included what is now West Virginia and Kentucky) Both became troubled with the non-Biblical rules, expecially in dealing with the Communion Services and sought to get back to Biblical principles.
  • James O’Kelley was a Methodist in North Carolina who became dissatisfied with the existing order of things in the prevailing Episcopal form of government in the church and desired to focus more on Biblically defined methods.
  • Barton W. Stone was a Presbyterian at Cane Ridge Kentucky who desired to get back to Biblical methods of worship and practice.
  • Abner Jones was a Baptist in Vermont sought to use only the Bible as a rule of faith.
  • The Movements initiated by these men developed primarily into two groups which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith were particularly important.
  • The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, and identified as “Christians“.
  • The second led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell, both educated in Scotland; they eventually used the name “Disciples of Christ“.
  • Both groups sought to restore the Christian church based on visible patterns set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake.
  • Among other things, they were united in the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that Christians should celebrate the Lord’s Supper on the first day of each week; and that baptism of adult believers was necessarily by immersion in water. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus. Both groups promoted a return to the purposes of the 1st century churches as described in the New Testament. One historian of the movement has argued that it was primarily a unity movement, with the restoration motif playing a subordinate role.

The Name of the Movement

         Because the Restoration Movement lacks any centralized structure, having orginated in a variety of places with different leaders, there is no consistent nomenclature for the movement as a whole. The term “Restoration Movement” became popular during the 19th century; this appears to be the influence of Alexander Campbell’s essays on “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things” in the Christian Baptist. The term “Stone-Campbell Movement” emerged towards the end of the 19th century as a way to avoid the difficulties associated with some of the other  names that have been used and to maintain a sense of the collective history of the movement.

The Restoration Movement has since divided into multiple separate groups. The three main groups are:  (In no specific order)

  • Churches of Christ
  • Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    • Independent Christian Church/Church of Christ congregations.
  • The Principles of the Movement

The Restoration Movement has been characterized by several key principles:

  • Christianity should not be divided; Christ intended the creation of one church.
  • Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions)
  • Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.
  • Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., “Christian Church”, “Church of God” or “Church of Christ” as opposed to “Methodist” or “Lutheran”, etc.).
  • Thus, the church “should stress only what all Christians hold in common and should suppress all divisive doctrines and practices”.
  • Several slogans have been used in the Restoration Movement, which are intended to express some of the distinctive themes of the movement:
  • “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” (Some restated this as): “Where the Scriptures speak, we are silent; where the Scriptures are silent, we speak.” (Both are generally saying the same thing.)
  • “The Church of Jesus Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.”
  • “We are Christians only, but not the only Christians.”
  • “In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love.”
  • “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the divine.”
  • “Do Bible things in Bible ways.”
  • “Call Bible things by Bible names.”
  • Characteristics of the movement(s)

            The cornerstone for the Stone movement was Christian freedom. This ideal of freedom led them to reject all the historical creeds, traditions and theological systems that had developed over time and to focus instead on a primitive Christianity based on the Bible.

            While restoring primitive Christianity was central to the Stone movement, they believed that restoring the lifestyle of members of the early church is essential. During the early years, they “focused more… on holy and righteous living than on the forms and structures of the early church. The group also worked to restore the primitive church. Concerned that emphasizing particular practices could undermine Christian freedom, this effort tended to take the form of rejecting tradition rather than an explicit program of reconstructing New Testament practices. The emphasis on freedom was so strong that the movement avoided developing any ecclesiastical traditions; it was “largely without form, or structure.” What held the movement together was a commitment to primitive Christianity.”

The Merger of the Stone and Campbell movements

Despite their differences, the two movements agreed on several critical issues.

  • Both saw restoring apostolic Christianity as a means of hastening the millennium.
  • Both also saw restoring the early church as a route to Christian freedom.
  • Both believed that unity among Christians could be achieved by using apostolic Christianity as a model.

                        The committment of both movements to restoring the early church and to uniting Christians was enough to motivate a union between the two into one single movement.

            The Stone and Campbell movements merged in 1832. This was formalized at the Hill Street Meeting House in Lexington, Kentucky, with a handshake between Stone and “Raccoon” John Smith. Smith had been chosen by attendees as spokesman for the followers of the Campbells. A preliminary meeting of the two groups had been held in late December 1831, culminating with the merger on January 1, 1832. Two representatives of the assembly were appointed to carry the news of the union to all the churches: John Rogers for the Christians and Smith for the reformers. Despite some challenges, the merger succeeded. Many believed the union held great promise for the future success of the combined movement and greeted the news enthusiastically.

  • However, when the two movements united, only a minority of Christians participated. Those who did were from congregations west of the Appalachian Mountains that had come into contact with the Stone movement.
  • The eastern members had several key differences with the Stone and Campbell group; an emphasis on having a conversion experience & quarterly observance of communion.
  • Those who did not unite with Campbell later merged with the Congregational Churches in 1931 to form the Congregational Christian Churches. In 1957, the Congregational Christian Church merged with the Evangelical and Reformed Church to become the United Church of Christ.)

 

Chapter 3         

A United movement (1832–1906)

  • The merger between the Stone & Campbell groups raised the question of what to call the new movement. Both felt that finding a biblical, non-sectarian name was important.
  • Stone wanted to continue to use the name “Christians” (Stone advocated using the name “Christians” based on its use in Acts 11:26,)
  • Alexander Campbell insisted upon “Disciples of Christ”. (Campbell preferred the term “disciples” because he saw it as both a more humble and an older designation.)
  • As a result, both names were used, and the confusion over names has continued ever since.

            After 1832, use of the term “Reformation” became frequent among leaders of the movement. The Campbells had designated themselves as “Reformers,” and other early leaders also saw themselves as reformers seeking Christian unity and restoring apostolic Christianity. The movement’s language at the time included phrases such as “religious reformation,” the “present reformation,” the “current reformation” and “the cause of reformation.”

            The term “Restoration Movement” became popular by the late 19th century. It appears to have been inspired by Alexander Campbell’s essays on “A  Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things” in the Christian Baptist. 

            The combined movement grew rapidly over the period from 1832 to 1906. According to the 1906 U.S. Religious Census the combined membership of the movement made it the 6th largest Christian group in the country at that time.

Missionary Society Controversy

            In 1849, the first national convention was held at Cincinnati, Ohio. Campbell had concerns that holding conventions would lead the movement into divisive denominationalism. He did not attend the gathering. Among its actions, the convention elected Campbell its president and created the American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS). By the end of the century, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society and the Christian Woman’s Board of Missions were also engaged in missionary activities. Forming the ACMS did not reflect a consensus of the entire movement, and these para-church organizations became a divisive issue. While there was no disagreement over the need for evangelism, many believed that missionary societies were not authorized by scripture and would compromise the autonomy of local congregations.

Use of musical instruments in worship

            The use of musical instruments in worship was discussed in journal articles as early as 1849, but initial reactions were generally unfavorable.m Some congregations, however, are documented as having used musical instruments in the 1850s and 1860s. An example is the church in Midway, Kentucky, which was using an instrument by 1860. A member of the congregation, L. L. Pinkerton, brought a melodeon into the church building. The minister had been distressed to his “breaking point” by the poor quality of the congregation’s singing. At first, the instrument was used for singing practices held on Saturday nights but was then incorporated into worship on Sundays. One of the elders of that assembly removed the first melodeon, but it was soon replaced by another. (I have been told that this instrument is on display at Midway College in Midway, KY.)

            Both acceptance of instruments and discussion of the issue grew after the Civil War. Opponents argued that the New Testament provided no authorization for their use in worship, while supporters argued on the basis of expediency and Christian liberty. Affluent urban congregations were more likely to adopt musical instruments, while poorer and more rural congregations tended to see them as “an accommodation to the ways of the world.”

                                                   Biblical interpretation

  • Early leaders of the movement had a high view of scripture and believed that it was both inspired and infallible.
  • Dissenting views developed during the 19th century in addition to rejecting the inspiration of the Bible and supporting the use of instruments in worship,
  • Some supported “open membership” (recognizing as members individuals who have not been baptized by immersion)
  • As the 19th century progressed, the denial of the inerrancy of the Bible slowly spread.

 

Separation of the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches

                                         Factors leading to the separation

            Disagreement over centralized organizations above the local congregational level, such as missionary societies and conventions, was one important factor leading to the separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). After the Civil War more congregations began using instruments, which led to growing controversy. The greatest acceptance was among urban congregations in the Northern states. Very few congregations in the Southern United States used instruments in worship. While music and the approach to missionary work were the most visible issues, there were also some deeper ones, such as basic differences in the underlying approach to Biblical interpretation.

  • For the Churches of Christ, the view that any practices not present in accounts of New Testament worship were not permissible in the church, and they could find no New Testament documentation of the use of instrumental music in worship.
  • For the Christian Churches, any practices not expressly forbidden could be considered.
  • The Civil War exacerbated the cultural tensions between the two groups.

Formal recognition in 1906

  • The first official recognition of the group(s) was the 1906 U.S. Religious Census which listed the “Churches of Christ” and the “Disciples of Christ” as separate and distinct groups.
  • Generally speaking, the Disciples of Christ congregations tended to be predominantly urban and Northern, while the Churches of Christ were predominantly rural and Southern. The Disciples favored college-educated clergy, while the Churches of Christ discouraged formal theological education because they opposed the creation of a professional clergy. Disciples congregations tended to be wealthier and constructed larger, more expensive church buildings.
  • Churches of Christ congregations built more modest structures and criticized the wearing of expensive clothing at worship. One commentator has described the Disciples “ideal” as reflecting the “businessman,” and the Church of Christ “ideal” as reflecting “the simple and austere yeoman” Churches of Christ have maintained an ongoing commitment to purely congregational structure, rather than a denominational one, and have no central headquarters, councils, or other organizational structure above the local church level.
  • After the separation from the Churches of Christ, tensions remained among the Disciples of Christ over theological liberalism, the nascent ecumenical movement and “open membership.” While the process was lengthy, the more conservative unaffiliated Christian Church/Church of Christ (instrumental) congregations eventually emerged as a separately identifiable religious body from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
  • By 1926 a split began to form within the Disciples over the future direction of the church. Conservatives within the group began to have problems with the perceived liberalism of the leadership. In 1927 they held the first North American Christian Convention, and the unaffiliated Christian Church/Church of Christ congregations began to emerge as a distinct group from the Disciples, although the break was not formalized until the late 1960s. By this time the decennial religious census was a thing of the past and could not be used as a delineation as it was in 1906.
  • It is interesting that a current search for “Church of Christ” which has no central organization will appear. However, a search for “Christian Church” will almost always raise the Disciples of Christ. This writer finds this most interesting since neither the Churches or Christ nor the Christian Church (Independent) have a central organization.

All three major U.S. branches of the movement share the following characteristics:

  • A high view, compared to other Christian traditions, of the office of the elder; and
  • A “commitment to the priesthood of all believers”.

            The movement as a whole grew significantly over the course of the 20th century, and the relative size of the different groups associated with the movement shifted as well. During the mid-20th century, the Churches of Christ were the fastest growing religious group in the USA. This diminished greatly toward the end of the century. The Disciples of Christ were reported as loosing about 10%/year of membership in the latter part of the 20th century.  

It should be noted that the Disciples are the only one of the three “Restoration” goups that maintains a central organization office. One advantage of this organization is their ability to do an excellent job of preserving the history of the movements. This is evident in the Deciples offices in Nashville, TN and the restored monument at Cane Ridge KY.

       Subsequent Developments

            The term “Restoration Movement” has remained popular among the Churches of Christ and the unaffiliated Christian Church/Church of Christ congregations.

            There was a significant move of the Disciples of Christ organization in the mid-20th century to claim control of all congregations that were called “Christian Church”. This was referred to as “Restructuring” and in many instances the cases ended up in the courts. One “claimed” idea that was presented by the Disciples was that they should be called “The Christian Church”. (Emphasis on “The”.) (One leader of the Independents once stated that if the move of the Disciples was successful, the Independents might need to change to “Disciples”.) The events of this attempt were advertised openly in many newspapers and presented a “negative” image of both groups to the general public. The attempts of the “Restructure” were largely unsuccessful.

    A general view as of this date would seem to view the positions of the three groups as follows:

  • Churches of Christ*; (Very Conservative; possibly legalistic)
  • Christian Churches (Independent): (Conservative)
  • Disciples of Christ: (Liberal)

 

            *(It is unfortunate that the Churches of Christ have been a divided fellowship, with numerous subjects of disagreement. Some of these are “the use of one communion cup vs multiple cups”, “whether having classes is Biblical”, “church support of colleges, orphans homes, etc.”, “having kitchens in the church building”, “interpretation of End Time Events”, “whether they may have fellowship with other Christian groups, etc.)

Reunion efforts

            Efforts have been made to restore unity among the various branches of the Restoration Movement. However, these efforts have not yet resulted in renewed fellowship between the three groups.

The above is an attempt to acquaint members of the Christian Church and Churches of Christ with an understanding of how these congregations came into existence and as we see them today.  

 …J.W. Rowe (July 5, 2023)

Some further thoughtsThere is a current trend to adjust or change the names of specific congregations or denominations that result in our inability to anticipate doctrines we may find inside.  In times past, we usually had a “clue” as to the doctrine we might expect there. Some examples are:

  1. Many congregations now go by the name of “(Community Church”. (Some of these are really Baptist, Church of Christ, etc.)
  2. The name “United Church of  Christ” causes many to associate with “Churches of Christ”
  3. Canaan Christian Church (Louisville) is really a Baptist Church
  4. Crossroads Christian Church (Louisville) states they are Southern Baptist, but changed from “Bethel Evangelical & Reformed” (to) “Bethel United Church of Christ “(to) “Bethel United Church”.
  5. Many Baptist Churches that were affiliated with the “Southern Baptist” organization have been removed from this affiliation.

            The “bottom line” is that we will need to actually visit the church and observe the specific doctrine in order to know just how Biblical they may be. (In other words; we must be like the church at Berea in that they searched the Scriptures daily to see if the teaching was Biblical.)