IS AUGUST 17, 1889
THE BIRTHDAY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

It is difficult to give a precise date for the beginning of any religious group, but I suggest that August 17, 1889 can be defended as the genesis of what we call “the Church of Christ.” Some of the old timers among us can recall a half century or more of our history, and 1906 is generally recognized as the year that the U. S. Census listed us as separate from the Christian Church or Disciples. But the Census people were only recognizing what had been evolving for upwards of a generation.

In naming 1889 as the year we began, I am fully aware that this may prove offensive to those who like to carve “Founded A. D. 33” on the cornerstones of our buildings, or list such a date on a tract as the time of our origin. But who can really take such a claim seriously? Where was the “Church of Christ” when Luther nailed his thesis to the door of that cathedral in 1517? And where was it when the preaching of Peter the Hermit fired the First Crusade in 1095, or when Emperor Marion called 500 bishops to the Council of Cha1cedon in 451?

We are told that “we” were then lost in the wilderness, and that Alex Campbell and Barton Stone “restored” the true church around 1809. But this is only another way of saying that the “Church of Christ” did not exist before the 19th century. To assert that our birthday is really on Pentecost in 33 A. D. is to beg the question that we are indeed the true church and no one else is. That the Body of Christ, the congregation of the New Covenant scriptures, began on Pentecost in 30 or 33 A. D. is a generally accepted fact of history. But for anyone religious society today to claim to be precisely that church is a risky pretension, to say the least. If all the other communions, whether Presbyterian, Mormon, or Roman Catholic, began since that glorious Pentecost, it is likely that the “Church of Christ”—and the “Church of God”—also began sometime since then.

Besides, it is not true that Stone and Campbell were out to “restore the true church,” as if it did not already exist. Their intention was to restore to the church (that already existed) things they believed lacking. They were reformers, desiring to change conditions that were amiss. They understood that the Body of Christ has always existed, just as Jesus promised that it would, but that it always needs reforming—even as it did in the first century!

So in tracing our own history, the “Church of Christ” as we now know it with those unique features that make it distinctive, we certainly cannot go any further back than the 19th century. It all depends on when in the 1800’s, and I’ll explain why I say 1889.

In common with other of our historians, I would date the beginning of the Stone-Campbell Movement as 1801, the year of the Cane Ridge Revival. The writing of the Last Will and Testament (1804) and the Declaration and Address (1809) are other dates of importance in identifying our Movement’s beginning. And it was at the outset intended to be only a Movement, a movement “to unite the Christians in all the sects.” No one then intended to start still another sect or denomination, certainly not Stone or Campbell. Their idea was to work within the existing churches, for there the true Body of Christ was present amidst all the sectism, and thus to help complete the task of reformation that began with Luther. The first congregations under Stone attempted to work within the Presbyterian framework, and Campbell’s first church (Brush Run) joined two different Baptist associations.

But none of this worked. They soon found themselves on the “outside,” and so they evolved into a society of their own. By 1850 they were upwards of one-half million strong, calling themselves “Christians” and “Disciples,” but hardly ever “Church of Christ.” And at this time they were quite different from what we now call the “Church of Christ.” The main difference is that they were not exclusivists nor sectarians, for they generally practiced the rule laid down by Campbell that nothing is to be made a test of fellowship but what is clearly set forth in the scriptures, and they readily conceded that they were not the only Christians, though they did take pride in being Christians only.

An orthodox “Church of Christ” member of the 1970’s would have been uncomfortable in the Disciple congregations of the 1850’s. He would have as fellow-members oodles of Baptists that came into the Movement without being reimmersed. He would sorely miss the claim that “We are the only true church,” for they were not of that persuasion. He might even be asked to attend the annual gathering of the Christian Missionary Society that began in 1849 with Alex Campbell as president. And as he moved amongst the congregations he might not see a single sign reading “Church of Christ.” He would also miss such teaching as “the five items of worship” and other peculiar “Church of Christ” doctrine. Nor was there then the demand for conformity as there is now among us. They had widely divergent views on many points of doctrine, including baptism. Thomas Campbell was an avowed Calvinist and Barton Stone had unorthodox views on the preexistence of Christ. But their broader view of fellowship kept them one people.

Campbell’s view of a sect was “a religious system that makes opinions tests of fellowship.” This concept prevailed for the first six or seven decades of the Movement, for they simply did not make opinions and private interpretations tests of fellowship. By 1850 some churches supported societies, others did not; some had the instrument, others did not; some “the minister,” others did not. Still they did not split. Even the pressures of the Civil War did not fracture them. So, we can hardly see the “Church of Christ” in 1850.

In the generation following the Civil War a different spirit began to emerge. Some leaders lost their perspective of “preserving the unity of the Spirit” and began to insist upon conformity of doctrine as the basis of oneness. Forbearance of differences gave way to strict adherence to “party” leadership. And we say party, for by the 1880’s certain leaders were ready to divide the Movement in order to have their way about doctrine.

It all came to a head in Sand Creek, Illinois on August 17, 1889 at a gathering of thousands of “conservative” brethren who were protesting against what they called the innovations. They composed a document called An Address and Declaration, which was a reversal in spirit as well as in title, from Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address, which is rightly adjudged a great contribution to unity. The “Address” part of the document, composed by Peter P. Warren at Sand Creek, was a denouncement of such innovations as societies, choirs, and “the one man imported preacher-pastor,” Curiously enough, the instrument was not mentioned, though surely included in “other objectionable and unauthorized things.”

Such protests were not new. The organ had been debated for 20 years. Such stalwarts as McGarvey and Franklin were opposed to the organ, but both insisted that it should not be made a test of fellowship. Franklin had suggested that anti-organ folk might meet separately for conscience sake, if need be, but that they should not withdraw fellowship from each other.

It was the “Declaration” part of the document that was new, for it was a formal withdrawal from all those who practiced the innovations. It did not mince words: “after being admonished, and having sufficient time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we cannot and will not regard them as brethren.”

This cruel act of division was sanctioned by Daniel Sommer, editor of American Christian Review, in the north, and by David Lipscomb, editor of Gospel Advocate, in the south, and so the “Church of Christ” became a separate communion. This set the stage for the separate listing in 1906 in the U. S. Census. It was in that same year that the “Church of Christ” and the “Christian Church” went to court over the property in Sand Creek, Illinois which has been followed by seven decades of hate, debate and divisiveness.

It is ironic that the same Movement could produce two documents so different in spirit as the Declaration and Address and the An Address and Declaration. The first called for a unity in diversity, recognizing that God’s children can be one in Christ and yet have differing opinions and interpretations. The latter insisted upon a conformity of doctrine, without which there can be no brotherhood. When Sommer and Lipscomb endorsed a policy of “we can not and will not recognize them as brethren” because of differences in opinion, they raped the Restoration principle, and they started a practice that has further divided the “Church of Christ” every decade since then.

Lipscomb, a man devoted to the principle of unity, refused to go along with such a divisive scheme when it was tried ten years before. Had he continued to refuse, choosing the attitude of “co-existence” advocated by Franklin and McGarvey, the “Church of Christ” might never have happened, for it required Lipscomb’s southern leadership.

So, let’s face the truth about our origin. Our founders: Peter Warren, Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb. The place: Sand Creek, Illinois. The time: August 17, 1889. And the document that sealed our origin: An Address and Declaration, surely one of the most vindictive and sectarian documents in the history of religion.

What can we do about this once we are mature enough to face the facts? Repudiate our illegitimate beginning, disclaim the spirit of An Address and Declaration, and courageously adhere to the freedom of the Declaration and Address that acknowledges that wherever God has a son we have a brother, despite his erroneous opinions.

Then we can join hands with all concerned believers throughout the Christian world in making the community of God upon earth what it ought to be. This is the Restoration ideal and this is the spirit that originally motivated us. If a tragic day derailed us, let a bright day of love and hope get us back on the right track.—the Editor