MYTHS
OF THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT (2)
By W. Carl Ketcherside
One
definition of the word myth has always intrigued me. A myth is “a
legend embodying the convictions of a people as to their own origin
and early history and the heroes connected with it.” And since
I am writing about myths of the restoration movement I might as well
begin with the biggest one first. It would be a tragedy to get
equipped to go out and hunt whales and end up seining minnows. But
let me first clear away a little matter which might leave a false
impression.
I
am speaking about the restoration movement as if it were the
only one ever hatched out in the fertile minds of men. Actually I
should be speaking of a restoration movement. As any student
of church history knows there have always been such movements from
the third century on. Our own is but one of sixteen which were
launched in the fifty years immediately following the American
Revolution. Many of the others were German or Dutch in their origin.
Ours was the only one of Scotch-Irish descent, which may have
something to do with its popularity with us. We do not speak German.
Some of them still survive; others have expired. All of them had as
their goal the unity of all Christians by a return to the apostolic
pattern for the church. And all of them had two other things in
common. They all exploded into fragments and splinters and they all
spoke of their own as the restoration movement.
Each
movement was composed of those who thought that the blueprint for it
originated in heaven. I well remember some of our old-time brethren
who were high on prophecy. They would lecture on the Book of
Revelation so graphically that your hair stood up like you had stuck
your finger in an electric socket, and you were afraid to walk home
from the meeting in the dark. If someone had yelled “Boo!”
at you, you’d have been running yet. They always located the
restoration movement in Revelation 14:6. It came after the origin of
the Protestant sects. John said: I saw an angel fly in the midst of
the heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to them that
dwell on the earth.” At first some of them designated Thomas
Campbell as the angel until they found out that he dipped snuff all
of his life. He quickly fell from heaven.
When I
learned that all groups who thought they were the subject of divine
prophecy—including the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
Seventh Day Adventists—had their own angels, I wanted to sue
them for fraud and for obtaining money under false pretense.
Gradually, I came to see that all are caught in the same trap. That
does not mean that all are equal in credibility. I am not talking
about credibility. But it does mean that every movement started by
men follow the same human tendency of reading that movement back into
the sacred volume. But there has never been an indication that God is
as interested in any movement as those who join it and become zealots
for it.
As I view
it, the greatest error in our history (and there have been three of
major proportions), is the brainwashing of ourselves into believing
that a movement which began in the early nineteenth century was
suddenly and miraculously transmuted into the kingdom of heaven, to
the utter exclusion of every other sincere believer in Jesus Christ
who was not a member of such a movement. This did a number of things
which severed us completely from thoughtful people who could not buy
our thinking. Let us look at a few of them.
It wiped
out seventeen hundred years of struggle as of no consequence at all.
It negated other attempts at restoration which literally cost the
lives of thousands of persons. Actually, it is questionable whether
some members of “The Church of Christ” believe anyone was
saved from the death of John the apostle to the birth of Thomas
Campbell. I am thinking just now of Peter de Bruys of Provence, of
whom it was said, “He made the most laudable attempts to reform
the abuses and to remove the superstitions that disfigured the
beautiful simplicity of the gospel.” That was in 1110. After
preaching such reform for 20 years he was burnt at the stake at St.
Giles’s in 1130.
Incidentally
some of the things he urged upon his followers were: 1. That no
persons whatever be baptized before they were come to the full use of
their reason. 2. That it was an idle superstition to build churches
for the service of God, who will accept of a sincere worship wherever
it is offered. 3. That the crucifixes used as instruments of
superstition deserved to be pulled down and destroyed. 4. That the
real body and blood of Christ were not exhibited in the eucharist;
but were merely represented in that holy ordinance, by their figures
and symbols. 5. And lastly, that the oblations, prayers, and good
works of the living, could be in no respect advantageous to the dead.
I call
that pretty good thinking for one who preceded Martin Luther by 400
years and Thomas Campbell by 800 years, and who never attended one of
our Christian colleges. I look forward to meeting Peter de Bruys in
heaven along with a host of others such as Huss, Latimer, Ridley, and
a whole catalog of those courageous souls who qualified for inclusion
in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. I think Jesus meant what he said
when he declared, “He that loseth his life for my sake shall
find it.” I will count myself honored to stand among those who
watched their flesh shrivel to a blackened cinder because of their
supreme faith in him. That is, if I make it!
Alexander
Campbell wrote in 1837: “If there be no Christians among the
Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none
among the Jews, Turks, Pagans, and therefore no Christians in the
world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all
of the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has
been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the
promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have
failed; and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church. This
cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects.”
I concur with this. We have confused “THE CHURCH OF CHRIST”
with the body of Christ, the family of God. This is the very essence
of sectarianism. If not, why not?
We know
when the restoration movement began. We know who began it. And we
know why it was begun. It is too young to be the church which Jesus
built and too old to be the sect it has become. We have tried to make
it identical with the church by resorting to childish and inane
subterfuges. One of the most absurd and asinine is the chiseling on
the cornerstones of modern church buildings, which were themselves
unknown to the new covenant scriptures—Established 33 A.D. We
have fooled no one but ourselves. Some of our religious neighbors
have gnashed their teeth while others have laughed up their sleeves
at such puerile effrontery.
In doing
this we have not been thinking of the organism given life of the
Spirit and set in motion upon the day of Pentecost. There is no proof
of the fact that God ever started anything like we build upon such
cornerstones. But we have sought to distinguish ourselves from every
other believer in the neighborhood, all of which we conclude started
later than we did. We have a direct chain leading back to the
beginning, others have shorter chains tying them to some event in
history which originated them. It is a travesty upon God’s
blessed word to see the words engraved upon three cornerstones in the
same town, where the members built upon those cornerstones have
nothing to do with each other, and will not even speak to one another
when they meet in the post office.
Do we not
tend to confuse the world by such tactics? Do we not leave them
thinking that Christ is divided? We send missionaries into towns
where the good news has been preached for a century and the first
thing they do is to call together a dozen people who share in their
peculiarities and place upon the cornerstone where they
meet—Established 33 A.D. As one old brother said, “What
they represent may have been started then but this place was
established last March after a big row in the Baptist Church.”