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

THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

Restorationists have always been especially conscious of the nature of the church. In their concern for apostasy or a falling away, it is in their minds the church that has been corrupted. Restoration therefore involves renewal through a recovery of the pristine purity of the church. This refers to its name, terms of membership, mission, work and worship, its government and its institutions. In short, the character or nature of the church.

The Campbells were no less concerned than other restorationists in the character of God’s community on earth. One of Alexander Campbell’s first and most important series of essays was on “The Ancient Order of Things,” which probed the essential character of the primitive ecclesia. It is noteworthy than in Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address, where he submits thirteen propositions as the basis for reform, the very first proposition begins with “That the church of Christ…”

In our own time most of us agree that there is a great need to “take up where the Campbells left off” or to “continue the Restoration Movement.” In this noble concern we are to be no less conscious of the nature of the church than they were. While we are eager to learn whatever our pioneers can teach us about the church, we are not to be content with anything less than an understanding of the relevance of the church to our time.

It may be that the Campbells are yet far beyond us in their grasp of the character of the community of God, and that we could hardly do better for ourselves than to learn what has long been available to us—the wisdom of our own pioneers. Especially is there a need to study their findings in the light of our own problems. This is our purpose in this installment of our survey of the Declaration and Address.

We intend to show that it has much to say to our time, not only to our own divided and confused ranks, but to the Christian world at large in its concern for ecumenism.

Church Is Essentially One

That the church of Christ 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.

This first proposition contains the most famous line Thomas Campbell ever wrote: The church is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.

This proposition is the basic premise from which all else is developed. It was this precious truth, once realized, that caused Mr. Campbell to invite to the Lord’s table Christians other than those of his own communion, which led to his being reprimanded by his superiors in the Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian Church. It was indeed this truth that led him to disassociate himself from any and all sectarian bodies, to become a Christian-at-large, and to eventually start his own association of Christians, which he did not intend to become another denomination.

If the community of heaven is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one, then it is its very character to be united. Anything divisive or factious cannot be the church. To the extent that Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian churches—and Christian Churches and Churches if Christ represent parties within Christendom, they are not the body of Christ. Members of such groups may well be true believers and members of the only church there is, but the organizations themselves cannot be churches. There is but one church, and by its very nature it cannot be divided. It cannot be two or two hundred. It is constitutionally one, as Campbell says.

That the church is intentionally one points to the divine purpose rather than to human expediency. It is not because the church in our time would be more effective that it should be united, or that it would be more acceptable with the masses, but because it is God’s intention that it be one. In this respect we can speak of unity as an end itself, for it conforms to heaven’s purpose for the church.

In saying the church is essentially one, Campbell is saying that it really cannot be otherwise. Just as the church will always be, the gates of hell being unable to withstand it, it will always be one. It is to say that unity is something to be realized, not something to be achieved. As Eph. 4:3 puts it: “Be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We are to maintain a oneness that already exists, not to bring into being a unity that is absent.

It is like restoring a precious painting that is corroded with dirt and grime. The rich, beautiful colors are already there, but have long since been begrimed by neglect and abuse. Renewal is not a matter of adding something new, but of subtracting something superfluous. It is the nature of the painting to display objects in lively and attractive colors and designs. This it does when the ugly accruements are removed. One does not do this by creating all sorts of imitations of the painting.

It would be appropriate if representatives from all the denominations of the world would assemble and declare that the church of God upon earth is one, thus acknowledging its essential unity. This would be a repudiation of all sectarianism and an admission that no denomination can be the body of Christ. Denominationalism is part of the grime that must be removed, thus restoring the pristine beauty of the one church.

Character of Its Members

Campbell sees the congregation of Christ as composed 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.” He goes on to insist that only such ones can truly be called Christians.

Both of the Campbells were disturbed over the moral depression that characterized the American frontier. There has been no period in our history when we were so threatened with a collapse of morality as that immediately following the Revolutionary War. The moral breakdown followed the frontier west. The Campbells believed that religious bickering and partyism aided and abetted the immorality.

They thus saw the church as made up of those “called to be saints,” who had turned their backs upon the ways of the world. They took the injunction seriously that “without holiness no man can see the Lord,” and they insisted that one is not properly called a Christian unless he lives an exemplary life.

A student of the literature of the Campbells may be surprised to find so much attention given to the subject of morality. There were extended installments on “Christian Morality,” and in it all there was the conviction that the character of Christians would never be what it should until the believer accepts the Lordship of Christ in his life.

Alexander Campbell expressed the view that the church can no more be ruled by a book than it can by a pope. “No book ever governed any community,” he insisted. Until one is ruled by the indwelling Christ there will be no Christian morality.

Might there not be many who profess to be Christians, even among those in the leadership of the church, who are not really in the church at all? The character of one’s own life, what he is on the inside, may well negate anything he may profess outwardly.

In the second of his thirteen principles Thomas Campbell basis discipleship upon receiving other believers on the same ground that Jesus receives us.

That although the church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another; yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them to the glory of God. And for this purpose. . . to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

There is nothing trite about this statement. The words should weigh heavily upon our conscience, for the heirs of the Campbell movement have been the most remiss in heeding this plea for peace within the body of our Lord. He is saying that Christian union is far more than mere cooperation. People can cooperate in projects of mutual interest without really receiving each other as brothers. And it is part of Christian character to accept others in the Lord, just as the Lord has accepted us.

Here is a test for a congregation too seldom used. More important than how often they break bread or whether they use an organ is whether they accept the group of believers down the street as their brothers and treat them as such. We have not been taught to realize how serious it is to reject as a fellow Christian one that Jesus has accepted. “Welcome him who is weak in the faith” is probably among our people the most neglected prescription of all the Bible. It has not quite dawned on us that it is sinful to reject a man that Christ has accepted.

Terms of Membership

We must keep in mind that as early as 1809 when Thomas Campbell wrote the Declaration and Address he was still an unimmersed believer, and at that time had not given the subject of baptism any particular consideration. That was to come later. And yet it was in his third proposition that he laid down the principle that called for an examination of immersion as the door into the church.

Nothing ought to be inculcated upon christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation in their church constitution and managements but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles upon the New Testament church, either in express terms or by approved precedent.

Obviously enough Campbell was thinking negatively when he wrote this proposition, for he was concerned about the creedal demands made of believers before they would be accepted into the various sectarian groups. It was sins of commission that the churches were committing through their creeds that bothered him rather than sins of omission, which would later concern him. For one to be accepted as a Christian and enjoy the fellowship of the saints he must first become a Calvinist or an Armenian, or something. He must subscribe to this or that creed, for creeds were made the basis of communion.

It is noteworthy that at about the same time Thomas Campbell penned this proposition, his son, in college back in Glasgow, was refusing to take the Lord’s supper when it passed before him at the hands of Anti-Burgher Presbyterian elders, for other Christians were debarred. In his hand he held the token that gave him the privilege, but he chose to drop the token in its proper place and let the emblems pass by him untouched. This act marked young Campbell’s break with a sectarian basis of fellowship. His father was taking the same steps in America. It is significant that in both cases it was an experience with the Lord’s supper that precipitated the change.

Most of the divisions that mar the peace of the disciple brotherhood in our time would have been averted if this principle had been heeded. Make a list of the things that have been the occasion for ugly separations between brothers in Christ and you will discover that in each instance it was something not “expressly enjoined” in the word of God.

Some of us today are saying it this way: Nothing should be made a basis for fellowship that God has not made a condition for being saved.

This was Campbell’s point precisely. Unless it is expressly taught and enjoined in the Bible, it cannot be made a basis of communion.

How about instrumental music?

How about missionary societies or Herald of Truth?

How about theories about the millennium?

Or Sunday Schools? Or literature?

Or the manner of serving the Lord’s supper?

Campbell conceded that men might have creeds so long as they are not made the basis of fellowship. We should allow the same liberty of opinion. It may be my opinion, based upon what I believe to be good reasons, that the congregation of Christ should not use instruments of music in the corporate worship. If the saints where I meet share this opinion, then we should be extended the liberty of being non-instrumental. But Campbell’s principle is violated if we become anti-instrumental by making our opinion a law for others. An assembly down the way from us may have the opinion that the instrument is a permissable aid to the singing and thus choose to employ it. Since this is not a matter “expressly taught and enjoined,” we should accept the assembly in question as our beloved brothers.

Knowledge and Fellowship

In the eighth proposition Campbell makes a point that is vital to the problem of fellowship with us today. How much knowledge is required before one enters into fellowship with Christ? Every sectarian requires that the point of doctrine that distinguishes his own sect from all others be made a condition to fellowship. When Thomas Campbell first came to this country as a particular type of Presbyterian, he was to learn that to remain within that sect he had to deny fellowship to all other Christians, even other Presbyterians.

It is the same story within our parties. It is not enough to be non-instrumental. One must be anti-instrumental. Among the non-Sunday School factions, it is not sufficient simply to be indifferent about it and be non-Sunday School by chance of cirmumstance. It must be made a test of fellowship. And we are all guilty, or have been, for one reason or another, for all our parties have drawn lines on all the rest.

Some insist that one must know certain things (but not all!) about baptism before his immersion is acceptable, and in this manner reject the Baptists. One must know, for instance, that his immersion is for the remission of sins. They do not bother to insist that he know that such an act puts one “into Christ” or brings seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, which are equally scriptural in import. For some reason it is always “for the remission of sins” that one must know about.

Campbell’s proposition could help us along this line. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge.

He goes on to make it clear that fellowship is based upon what a disciple believes, not how much he knows about the scriptures. It is “a profession of their faith in and obedience to him” that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his church.

How often do we require disciples to make a profession that reaches beyond both their conviction and their knowledge? For decades now we have insisted that people be immersed who have already submitted to that act at the hands of others. Since their knowledge of this point or that is not what we think it ought to be, we baptize them over again. This is a sin that our pioneers did not commit. They would not have considered reimmersing a Baptist. The Firm Foundation, now a respected paper among us, exists in mute testimony to the ugly fight over this question back in the 1880’s. It was started in order to champion the cause of reimmersion, all on the assumption of a relationship between knowledge and fellowship.

It is much nearer the truth to say that one doesn’t have to know anything to enter into Christian fellowship, and his understanding of the scriptures may be nil. If he realizes that he is lost and believes that Christ is his Savior, he is ready for immersion into Christ. And all other Christians should accept him as within the fellowship, irrespective of their personal opinions about one thing or another.

Campbell’s principles on the nature of the church would deliver us from many of our impediments if we would but heed them. The fellowship that he envisioned and gave his life for is far beyond the sectarian devices that we have created. His principles would appeal to the Christian world in its concern for ecumenism if the heirs of the Campbell movement could themselves implement them by overcoming their own divisive ways. We have the odd combination of both the cure and the disease.—the Editor