LET THE MORMONS HAVE IT!

At my side is an unusual book entitled Divergent Paths of the Restoration by Steven L. Shields. Since you are probably an heir of what we have come to call “the Restoration Movement,” some statements from this book will interest you, such as:

“For some reason as yet unexplored and unexplained, the Restoration Movement has shown a schismatic tendency from its very first.”

“There have been only a few rather broad and somewhat limited studies of the various groups in the Restoration Movement.”

“The Restoration Movement is growing, both in numbers and in groups. Someone should keep some kind of track of what is going on.”

These statements might well have been penned by some heir of the Stone-Campbell unity movement, but the author of these lines is a Mormon and he is talking about the Mormons. The author seeks to identify all the splinter groups among the Mormons, and he has found fifty of them, some of which no longer exist. But there are eight main groups of Mormons (but only the Salt Lake City group, which is the largest, accepts that nickname), five of which have their headquarters in Independence, Mo., which is really the “holy city” of these people, according to their founding prophet, and not Salt Lake City.

Fifty different “Mormon” factions in 150 years of history! Mr. Shields lists the eight main groups in a special section he calls “Brief Summary of Eight Restoration Churches.” The book is not anti-Mormon, but a factual account by a Mormon historian of how the Mormons have divided and subdivided.

Some of the factions resulted from disputes about the right name. Objecting to “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” one group in Independence (2,000 members) is simply the “Church of Christ,” while another faction in the same city, with only 40 members, is the “Church of Jesus Christ.”

The book tells of a journal emanating from Bountiful, Utah, which specializes in Mormon history. Its name is Restoration. The book makes clear that it is the Mormons who are the Restoration Movement, and yet it raises the question I ask in my own history of the Stone-Campbell Movement, why is restoration ism inherently divisive? Mr. Shields notes that the reason for this is “unexplored and unexplained.”

There are of course still other restoration movements, such as the Plymouth Brethren, who are divided into eight different churches. They do a neat and simple thing. They number their factions Plymouth Brethren Church No.1, Plymouth Brethren Church No.2, etc.

Well, I am writing these lines to recommend that we let the Mormons have restorationism, the Restoration Movement, and all its attending baggage, including factionalism. Even though there are other restoration movements, the Mormons seem to out-restoration all other restorationists, so we should honor their claim and recognize them as the Restoration Movement.

If Churches of Christ/Christian Churches forgot all about the term “Restoration Movement” and never used it again they would lose nothing and would gain a great deal. The Mormons not only claim the term, but they deserve it. They are restorationists —all 50 of their factions —and this is why they can never be a force for the unity of all Christians. Restorationism and unity are antipodal.

Our heritage in the Stone-Campbell Movement is not restorationist. It was launched as a unity movement and not as a restorationist movement. The term “Restoration Movement” is of recent origin in our history, twentieth century, and it was not a term used by our pioneers. Stone and Campbell were reformers, not restorationists, and they referred to their efforts as “Reformation.” Stone never used the term “restoration” at all, not even once that I have found, while “reformation” was a constant theme as he pled “Let Christian unity be our polar star.” Campbell did use the term, especially in reference to “a restoration of the ancient order,” but he did not mean by restoration what the Mormons mean. Campbell used it as a synonym for reformation, thus referring to his work as “the New Reformation.”

The difference between restoration and reformation can be seen in the “revelations” of the Mormon prophet himself. Joseph Smith was troubled as to which church to join. The Lord appeared to him and told him not to join any of them, for they were all false churches. The story ended with the prophet “restoring” the true church since the existing churches could not be reformed. This is the essence of restorationism: the true church apostatized to the point that it ceased to exist on the earth, so some prophet or preacher, either with a new revelation or a “true” interpretation of the old revelation “restores” the true church revealed in the Scriptures.

I was taught this in the Church of Christ colleges I attended. The true New Testament church ceased to exist, “lost in the wilderness,” and Alexander Campbell came along in the 1800’s and “restored” it. Just like the Mormons, except we came up with a different kind of “restored” church!

Alexander and Thomas Campbell did not believe this. In their founding document, the Declaration and Address (1809), they wrote: “The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one.” This was two years before they had a single congregation, and yet they referred to “the Church of Christ” as a reality upon earth and not as something they expected to reestablish. Moreover, they referred to “uniting the Christians in all the sects,” and to them this was the ongoing Church of Christ, those Christians in the sects.

Nor did they see the existing denominations as exactly “false,” even if they were in need of reformation, otherwise they would not have had their first churches join denominational associations. The very first Campbell church at Brush Run belonged to the Redstone Baptist Association.

But restorationism (patternism and primitivism are synonyms) had its advocates in the Campbell movement, and this mentality gained a foothold and became a prime cause of the eventual split known as “Churches of Christ,” beginning in the 1880’s. The Churches of Christ continued to split. We may not have 50 factions like the Mormons have, but we probably run them a close second. This could be expected from the Mormons perhaps, but we began as a unity movement and it should not have happened with us.

The antithesis of restorationism is the doctrine of the inviolability of the church. One cannot be a Mormon or any restorationist and believe “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.” If the true Church of Christ has always existed upon earth, standing impregnable to all the assaults of Satan, then of course there is no reason to “restore” it, though one might restore to the church things that are lacking. Believing in the ongoing, indestructible church, one would work with or for those organizations that most approximate what Christ’s church should be, hoping to bring them still closer to his likeness. This is renewal or reformation. The reformer calls upon the church (that does exist) to repent. The restorer ignores history and starts over, assuming he has “the pattern” for the one true church, which may call for baptism for the dead on one hand and acappella music on the other.

Our pioneers did not intend to start another church, but to work within the framework of existing churches. They were thus reformers. When they were at last forced out of the churches with which they worked they found themselves the creators of still another denomination, known as Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ or Christian Churches. This Campbell accepted as a fact of life, and he had no qualms about referring to “our denomination.” That one denomination eventually became three, plus some subgroups. While this development would disappoint Campbell as any division within the church would, it would not change his basic intention. He would still insist that all unitists should work for the peace of the Body of Christ wherever they are. He would still believe, as we all should, that our Lord’s prayer for the oneness of his people will be realized.

The fatal flaw of restorationism is that it places conformity to a given interpretation (or method) above unity. A unitist allows for diversity, seeking unity in essentials. The Amish, for example, being restorationists insist upon a certain dress code, based on their view of “Be not conformed to this world.” When some would not conform, going so “modern” as to ride in automobiles, they had to become a separate sect known as Mennonites. If one does not conform to “the pattern,” which the New Testament is assumed to be, he must be excluded as unfaithful.

Mormonism with its 50 sects is a ghastly demonstration of restorationism. Not only does the one, true Mormon church reject all other Christian communities as false, but all 49 other Mormon churches are likewise rejected.

This is what they call “the Restoration Movement.” I suggest we let them have it. The rest of us should seek to be a part of the worldwide Body of Christ, which is made up of all Christians. And we should realize that Christ’s church upon earth has never been all that Christ intended, not even in the time of the apostles. It needed renewal then and it needs renewal now. And that is our mission: calling God’s church to its true witness in the world, which is to proclaim the gospel of Christ for the healing of the nations, and this with a united voice. If it is true that a united church can win a lost world, as Jesus indicated in his prayer for unity, it has to follow that a divided church cannot.

Our own heritage is such that we must insist that Unity is our business! Let restorationism be the business of the Mormons. They do it well. —the Editor

 

To do so no more is the truest repentance. —Martin Luther