“Declaration and Address”: Mandate for Renewal . . .

THE SPIRIT OF THE “DECLARATION AND ADDRESS”

Before we move into a consideration of Thomas Campbell’s lengthy Declaration and Address, in which he sets forth the principles that gave rise to the Restoration Movement, it is appropriate that we observe the spirit in which the document was written. We have reference to the attitude that Mr. Campbell had toward the problems that faced the church of his day, which are similar to those that we confront, and the attitude he showed toward others, especially those who differed with him.

The disposition that created the document is especially evident in the appendix to the document. The appendix itself is 60 pages, longer than the document proper. It is here that we can see Campbell coming to terms with some of the questions growing out of his mandate for renewal, the Declaration and Address. Principles can be obscure and impractical even when valid. They need illustration and explanation, and they especially need to be related to the problems faced by those at the grass roots level. In the appendix Campbell does this, reflecting the spirit that was to characterize the earlier stages of our Movement. This is why the appendix should have been the introduction and placed at the beginning rather than at the end.

Other Churches

At the very outset Mr. Campbell expressed concern that the Movement he had begun among the churches might be misunderstood. He made it clear that his purpose was to restore peace and unity, not to attack and destroy the existing churches. “We beg leave to assure our brethren,” he wrote, “that we have no intention to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the peace and order of the settled Churches.”

He further made it clear that he had no intention of causing people to leave the established churches to join his Movement. Even though the ministers may teach things with which he disagreed, he observed, this would not cause him to discourage people from hearing them. He wanted it to be said of his efforts “They seek not yours but you,” and so long as this spirit prevailed the existing churches would have nothing to fear from his labor of love.

While this intention on Campbell’s part was a noble one, it was hardly realistic. He had himself left the Presbyterians after some stormy experiences, and those who helped him start the Christian Association of Washington had also deserted their churches. Theoretically, the pioneers could have worked for unity and restoration within the churches, flatly refusing to start any other religious community; but practically this was hardly possible. Certainly they were not likely to influence others to stay with the churches and work for restoration within the traditional structures when they themselves had not done this.

In only a few years tens of thousands had joined the Campbells, with most of them coming from the established churches. It is academic to linger with the question of whether it could have been otherwise. What is important here is that the Campbells—did have an irenic spirit toward the churches. They would have preferred to restore to the existing churches their view of the ancient order of things rather than starting afresh, but this could hardly be, especially since the clergy reacted so negatively to their effort.

Creeds

It may surprise some of us, in view of our opposition to creeds through the years, that Mr. Campbell did not object to a creed per se. If a creed is no more than a statement of faith, a confession of one’s belief, or a defense of his doctrine, there can be no objection. It is when the creed is used as a means of judging others or as a test of fellowship that it is evil in Campbell’s view. It is the abuse of the creed that he opposed. Creeds are used to form new parties, he pointed out, and to divide the church.

Campbell believed that the basic fallacy of a creed, especially when used as a test of fellowship, is that it assumes that all God’s children are of the same mentality and at the same level of understanding in regard to doctrines difficult to interpret. It is a serious sin, he believed, to bar people from the Christian community because they cannot accept what is beyond their apprehension. A “very high degree of doctrinal information” and “very clear and decisive judgment” were required to satisfy the demands of the creeds, he observed.

This is where they are wrong, he insisted, in that they draw the line of fellowship when the Bible does not. If a creed would not do this and was but a statement of “the great system of Divine truths and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors,” he would have no objection. In fact he would see this as beneficial.

Opinions

From the very outset of the Restoration Movement in this country it was the problem of opinions that demanded so much attention, and it still appears to be a stumblingblock in our own efforts to complete the work of the pioneers. Mr. Campbell wrote more about this question in the Declaration and Address than any other.

But the thesis was clearly stated from the beginning: private opinions are not to be made the basis of Christian communion. It was readily conceded that there would be differences of opinion in interpreting the scriptures, and this would not be discouraged. Opinions were private property, and a man was entitled to as many as he desired. Bur he was not to make his opinion a test of fellowship or make his own interpretations a means of judging others.

As Mr. Campbell put it: “We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference of private opinion.”

He included himself in this judgment of opinion: “Thus we conclude to make no conclusion of our own, nor of any other fallible fellow creature, a rule of faith or duty to our brother.”

The spirit of the Movement, according to Campbell, was to be friendly persuasion. He would plead for unity among the churches; he would call for a restoration of the primitive faith; but he would not presume to dictate to the churches what they should do.

“We have only proposed what appeared to us most likely to promote the desired event,” he explained, “humbly submitting the whole premises to their candid and impartial investigation, to be altered, corrected, and amended, as they see cause, or to adopt any other plan that may appear more just and unexceptionable.”

This is the language of a man of peace, a conciliatory soul who wants to lead, not drive. We can only regret that this humble approach to religious problems, one that is as eager to learn from others as it is to teach, has not been more characteristic of our Movement.

He sought to correct what he called “a great evil” in reference to human opinion, namely, “the judging and rejecting of each other in matters wherein the Lord hath not judged.” It is in this context that he sets forth a principle that is most relevant to our time, a time when the church is fractured by the futile habit of making human opinions into divine law. Here is the statement that should appear repeatedly in all our brotherhood journals.

No man has a right to judge his brother except insofar as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law.

Campbell drives home this point, insisting that we have no right to take offense at a brother’s opinions so long as he holds them as such. If he does usurp the place of the lawgiver and makes his opinions into laws for others, we judge him even then, not for his opinions, but for his presumption.

He was convinced that troubles in the church have arisen over paying attention to opinions that should have been ignored. “The constant insisting upon them, as articles of faith and terms of salvation, have so beaten them into the minds of men, that, in many instances, they would as soon deny the Bible itself as give up one of those opinions.”

Somehow the heirs of the Restoration Movement failed to learn this lesson, our many divisions serving as monuments to that failure. That men will and should have opinions is evident enough, but that they would impose these upon others as matters of faith, thus rending asunder both homes and churches and causing untold misery, is surely one of the great wrongs of our time.

But a roll call of those opinions—instrumental music, the manner of serving the Supper, millennial theories, missionary methods, cooperative programs, to name only a few—bear witness to Campbell’s wisdom. We divide and subdivide, all over opinions. If they could have been ignored and not insisted upon either way, for them or against them, we might now be a united people. Premillennialism is an illustration of what so often happens. If those who believed it had set it forth as their own interpretation, which for the most part was the case, and if the others of us had allowed them to hold such opinions without reprisal, it would never have divided us. But somebody had to make a big deal out of opposing it, insisting that his opinions to the contrary be the accepted norm. It was a case of negative lawmaking. You cannot be a premillennialist and be within the fellowship!

Nature of Unity

Campbell made it clear that he had no illusions about everybody seeing the Bible alike. He described it as “morally impossible” that men should have identical views about divinely revealed truths. The oneness he pled for, he insisted, was not a “unity of sentiment”, but a oneness with a diversity of opinion that calls for mutual sympathy and forbearance. He observes that uniformity of doctrine, in those instances where it has been achieved for a time, has made no lasting contribution to unity. Even creeds, designed to achieve uniformity, have done nothing for the unity of Christians.

In response to the criticism that his position is too liberal or latitudinarian, Mr. Campbell acknowledge that it is surely God’s intention that His people be of one heart and one mind and that there be substantial unity of sentiment. But it is unrealistic to expect perfection along these lines, for there will always be errors in the church. As he puts it: “We only take it for granted that such a state of perfection is neither intended nor attainable in this world, as will free the Church from all those weaknesses, mistakes, and mismanagements from which she will be completely exempted in heaven.”

He places the question of unity directly before his readers: “What shall we do, then, to heal our divisions?”

To continue in the present practice is to perpetuate the divisions forever. His answer to the question is what our people have long proclaimed to the religious world: “Profess, inculcate, and practice neither more nor less, neither anything else nor otherwise than the Divine word expressly declares respecting the entire subject of faith and duty, and simply to rest in that, as the expression of our faith and rule of our practice.”

If the churches will but have a “Thus saith the Lord” for all they believe and practice, he avowed, then unity can be a reality. This is being neither broad nor narrow, but only doing as the Lord subscribes. To walk by any other rule is to accept human authority, which is the cause of all the divisions.

This is language with which most of us are familiar. The message is clear and unmistakable. If men will simply take the Bible, nothing more nor less, and be directed by what it expressly enjoins, and only that, we can heal our divisions.

Over a century and a half has passed since Mr. Campbell set forth these ideas, and while a great and noble people has arisen from his labors, the annoying fact remains that even his own followers are divided into a score of factions. His answer to the problem of division has solved nothing—neither in Christendom at large or in his own Movement.

Mr. Campbell’s answer is too simple or it is simply wrong. He says, for instance: “They will all profess and practice the same thing, for the Bible exhibits but one and the self same thing to all.” How can we say this in the light of centuries of history? The simple truth is that good, honest, sincere men see the Bible differently, with or without creeds.

Yet the embryo for a workable solution is present in the Declaration and Address, and it was left for Mr. Campbell’s son, Alexander Campbell, to set forth a more workable solution. Mr. Campbell recognized that men are at different stages of maturity, that they are constitutionally different, and that it is “morally impossible” for them to see everything alike. Yet he supposed that men can see alike what the Bible expressly says. That is, the facts can be understood by all alike. But this too has its difficulty, for just how are the facts to be separated from the rest?

Gospel and Doctrine

Mr. Campbell needed to be aware of a distinction that was finally discovered by his son. If he had said that the gospel of Christ, as revealed in the Bible, can be believed and obeyed by all, leaving room for varieties of opinions and interpretations in regard to the doctrine of the apostles, his position would have been less vulnerable.

There is no cause for opinion or differences respecting the fact of Christ. The gospel is a proclamation of good news that one accepts or rejects. It was “the thing preached” long before there were any New Testament scriptures. This led Alexander Campbell to refer to a belief in the one fact (Christ is Lord) and a submission to the one act (baptism) as the basis of unity. His father was struggling for such clarity, but lacked insight into the difference between gospel and doctrine.

Never in this world will men be able to see alike all that is in the New Testament scriptures, nor is there any evidence that such was ever intended by God. Men were one in Christ, they were united and enjoying fellowship with the Spirit, well before the New Testament scriptures were composed. This being true, those scriptures cannot be the basis for unity. It is the Christ revealed in those scriptures that is the basis of unity. When men believe in Him and obey Him in baptism they are one.

This is to say that the gospel is not the whole of the New Testament scriptures, for the gospel was a reality long before the scriptures were written. Strictly speaking, the teachings of the apostles are not facts, as the gospel is, but interpretations, implications, and edification based on the gospel. In this area, that of the didache (teaching) even the apostles differed in their ideas and emphases. The churches for whom these documents were written were likewise different from each other.

In all such areas as the worship of the corporate body, the organization of the congregation, personal and congregational problems there is room for different interpretations, which are evident in the scriptures themselves. Paul and Peter were as different as Jerusalem and Antioch. But whether Paul or Peter, Jerusalem or Antioch, there was unity, for they were all one in Christ. The gospel made them one. The doctrine, which was still being created, was and always will be subject to differences.

The doctrine allows for debate and dialogue, for intellectual stimulation and the stretching of the mind. It nurtures us in Christ, but in such a way that each man develops according to his own uniqueness. The pragmatic mind as well as the speculative mind finds food for thought. Its design is not to make us all alike in our thinking, but to make us mature in Christ. The gospel is not of this nature, for it is the glorious revelation of heaven in the form of a Person that has inducted us into fellowship with God and with each other. Growth follows this induction, its source being the apostles’ teaching.

Differences regarding doctrine may at times place a strain upon fellowship, but it is a tragic error to suppose that unanimity of doctrine is the basis of fellowship. If we wait for all of us to see all the scriptures alike before we are united, we will still be divided when the Lord comes.

Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address sets the tone for sensible dialogue, and, as we shall see in further installments, it postulates principles that are relevant to our day. In this installment we have seen his sincere struggle for answers to almost impossible problems, his attitude toward creeds and opinions, as well as his treatment of those whose ideas he opposed.

All this we find not only exemplary, but worthy of building upon. After 160 years we should be well in advance of the point reached by Thomas Campbell. That we instead find ourselves yet behind is a serious indictment against our own sectarianism.—the Editor