Highlights in Restoration History . . . 

LEARNING FROM A BACKWOODS PREACHER 

         When Raccoon John Smith stood up to speak at the union meeting in 1832, Lexington, Ky., between the "Christians" (Stone) and the Disciples or Reformers (Campbell), it may well have been the most dramatic moment in our history. While Alexander Campbell was not there, and less than enthusiastic about what was going on, Barton W. Stone was, and he gave his hearty blessings to the effort, along with numerous other leaders on both sides, especially John T. Johnston, who may be given credit for the significant event. 

         It says something for the individuality of the Movement that a union could be effected between the two groups, who had rather substantial differences between them, without the blessings of its most eminent leader. But Campbell did not oppose it, only thought it premature, and in time gave the union his support. 

         It is the wisdom with which Raccoon spoke on the occasion that is the concern of this essay. His biographer assures us that Raccoon realized the sensitivity of his role as the chief spokesman. An intemperate word, an unfraternal glance, or the slightest sectarian gesture might have spoiled it all. He spoke on our Lord's prayer for the unity of all believers, showing that oneness is both desirable and practical. Unity is between believers, he noted, not churches or sects. Jesus was not praying for an amalgamation of sects, but that there would be no sects at all. He observed that opinions and speculations, when insisted upon as tests of fellowship, have always caused divisions. 

         He showed how the church has argued over the doctrine of the atonement for centuries, and has divided over it, and that it is no closer together on the subject than when the dispute first began. He said he handled that issue by simply setting forth what the Bible actually says, such as "My Father is greater than I," without speculating upon the inferiority of the Son. Or he would cite "Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God" without drawing opinions about the consubstantial nature of the Father and Son. "I will not build a theory on such texts and thus encourage a speculative and wrangling spirit among my brethren," he told his Lexington audience. 

         This is the genius of that Movement that was started as an effort to unite the Christians in all the sects. Union among believers can be practically realized when opinions, which may be freely held as opinions, are not imposed upon others as tests of communion. Only what the Bible clearly and distinctly teaches can be required of all believers. As Raccoon laid it before the unity meeting: "Whatever opinions about these and similar subjects I may have reached, in the course of my investigations, if I never distract the church of God with them, or seek to impose them on my brethren, they will never do the world any harm."  

         He went on to identify the gospel as a system of facts, commands, and promises, and insisted that no deduction or inference drawn from them, however logical or true, forms any part of the gospel. Our opinions about the gospel are not part of the gospel and therefore cannot be held as a threat over those who deny them, he added. 

         He said he was willing to surrender any opinion for the sake of unity, but that he would not give up one fact, commandment, or promise of the gospel for the whole world. "While there is but one faith," he told them, "there may be a thousand opinions; and hence if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one in faith, and not in opinion." 

         It was then that he gave his famous exhortation: "Let us, then, my brethren, be no longer Campbellites or Stoneites, New Lights or Old Lights, or any other kind of lights, but let us all come to the Bible, and to the Bible alone, as the only book in the world that can give us all the Light we need." 

         Stone then took Raccoon's hand, agreeing with him as to the basis of unity and fellowship, thus uniting two unity movements. They broke bread together the next day, symbolizing a oneness that was to endure for more than half a century. When division finally wracked the Stone-Campbell Movement it was because leaders with a different spirit had risen. 

         Raccoon was something else. He earned his nickname by having come from raccoon country in the boondocks of southern Kentucky. With no chance of formal schooling, he became literate the hard way, but eventually became a very well read man. Tragedy tempered his life, curbing his pride and giving him a lovable sense of humor. But when his children burned to death in a log cabin fire, causing his wife to die of grief, he despaired of life itself. God lifted him up out of his extremity and made of him a gallant soldier of the cross. And a wise one. His spiritual wisdom united two churches, and we would do well to listen, we, his heirs, who seem bent upon dividing churches, and then sub-dividing. Raccoon's heirs today are divided more than a dozen different ways. He would consider that both incredible and irresponsible. What have we learned from our own history? 

         Raccoon's plan was both simple and profound. On controversial issue, he would simply state what the Bible actually says. On that (what the scriptures actually say) we can all agree. He will draw no deductions or opinions, or if he does he will set them forth as opinions, and will not impose them as tests of fellowship. We can be united only in this way, he insisted, never on our deductions. 

         Suppose we applied this to the current dispute over whether tongue-speaking has ceased, as per I Cor. 13:10. Here is what the Bible actually says: "When that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away." We can all agree that that is what the Bible says. But as to what the perfect means is a matter of opinion, our own deduction. So, we can remain united in mind by together accepting what is said, allowing freedom of opinion as to what is actually meant. 

         Then there are some that will draw the line on a sister or brother for "taking a drink." I do not take drinks and I suppose I do not approve, but in the light of scripture do I have the right to impose my view upon others, demanding that they see it my way or be thrust from the fellowship? The scriptures clearly make drunkenness a sin, and I know of no one that disputes that. Here we can agree. But to deduce that one cannot therefore take a cocktail with his meals without sinning is to go beyond what the Bible says. The teetotaler may be right, but as Thomas Campbell liked to put it, he cannot impose his deduction upon others until they see it the way he does. 

         I am persuaded that virtually all of our disputes are of this character. We divide over what the Bible says nothing about or over an opinion as to what it means when it does speak. We must realize that there may be difference between what the Bible says and our interpretation of what it says. So a country preacher suggests a solution: seek unity only on what the scriptures say and allow liberty of opinion as to what all it may mean by what it says. 

            Perhaps that would not solve all our problems, but it would solve a lot of them. And it places fellowship where it belongs: squarely on the scriptures rather than our sectarian interpretations. --- the Editor

 

Our opinions we wish no man to receive as truth, nor do we desire to impose them on any as tests of Christian fellowship. This is the principle on which we, as Christians, commenced our course many years ago --- Raccoon John Smith, Life of Elder John Smith, p. 388