1. Why do you think Stone and Campbell felt compelled to merge their movements in 1832?
   
   Campbell was not present at the 1832 union meeting in Lexington, and he feared it might have been premature. But he eventually gave his blessings to it. If anyone felt compelled – by the mandate of the Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17 – it would have been Barton W. Stone, from the Stone churches and John T. Johnson, representing the Campbell churches. They, along with others such as Raccoon John Smith, met and prayed together on several occasions leading up to the 1832 meeting. Beside the biblical mandate, they would have been compelled by all that they had in common, especially a passion for the unity of all God’s people. It was a union of two unity movements, a significant event in the history of American Christianity.
    

2. What was the main difference between Stone and Campbell? The main similarity?
   
   Perhaps the main difference was Campbell’s aggressiveness over against Stone’s milder nature. Even though he had precedence and was 15 years older, Stone readily yielded the leadership of the Movement to Campbell, recognizing that he had the leadership qualities needed at the time. Their main similarity was their commitment to the restoration of primitive Christianity, and through that the unity of Christians in all the sects.
    

3. Do you think the Christian unity Stone and Campbell espoused, but was never realized, is possible?

   The unity for which Stone and Campbell pled is the only unity possible, and yes, I believe it is possible to realize for the same reason I believe the Lord’s prayer for the unity of all believers will be answered. This is because it is the unity of the Spirit, a gift to be received by the church. It is a unity centered in a person rather than dogma. It is unity in diversity, not conformity. Its genius was captured in a motto: "In essentials unity; in opinions liberty; in all things love." It is at odds with Christian faith to hold that the unity our Lord prayed for cannot be realized. It will come in God’s own time and in his own way. We must be his instruments to that end.
    

4. In your book The Stone-Campbell Movement you state that Campbell did not believe in biblical inerrancy (p. 482). What do you use to defend that position?

   I might have better said that Campbell was not a fundamentalist, though that term became current after his day. Since biblical inerrancy is the sine qua non of fundamentalism, we can say he did not believe in inerrancy – that is, he would concede, as honest scholarship demands, that biblical writers are sometimes in conflict. But he would hold, as I do, that there are no material errors in Scripture – none that affect or compromise the message intended.

   There are numerous references that indicate that Campbell accepted modern biblical scholarship and was suspicious of what we now call fundamentalism. Such as: "There is one assertion from which we must dissent – ‘that the scriptures claim for every jot and tittle of themselves the same plenary or verbal inspiration.’ This we regard as ultraism. Any such claim would greatly impair the reasonings of the most able defenders of the inspiration of the Bible. It would be a great reproach upon the four Evangelists to represent them as believing every jot and tittle of the words of the Messiah and of themselves to have been inspired, when not any two of them narrate the same parable, conversation, sermon, or aphorism in the same words. The ideas and leading terms that represent them may be so regarded, but not every jot and tittle" (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 397).
    

5. Your position is that "editor-bishops" in the Stone-Campbell movement have had an influence comparable to that of bishops in other traditions. Has this been good or bad for the movement as a whole?

   It is like asking if a king is good or bad for a nation. It depends on the character of the king! Bishops have apparently played a positive, even necessary, role in other churches. We have not had bishops, but we have had editors who more or less filled that need. Campbell was even called "bishop" around Bethany, and the influence he had as an "editor bishop" was for good. He had such influence as to keep the Movement from dividing during his lifetime. Eventually editors emerged with a different spirit, and they had sufficient influence to divide us.
    

6. You reject the "restorationist mentality." Do you think Campbell would have agreed with you in regards to restorationism?

   It depends on how one defines restoration. If one takes the Mormon view, that the true church ceased to exist, and that Joseph Smith (or in our case Alexander Campbell) restored it, then Campbell would disagree, as I do. But if one uses restoration to mean renewal and reformation of the church that has always existed since Pentecost, then Campbell would agree, as I do. Campbell wrote about the "restoration of the ancient order" to the existing church. He used reformation and restoration as if they meant the same, and he believed the ancient slogan, Ecclesia semper reformanda ,"the church always reforming." Early on our people referred to the Movement as a reformation, not restoration. Campbell himself referred to it as "the new reformation," believing he was taking up where Luther left off.
    

7. Looking back over your experiences in the Churches of Christ, what is your general opinion of this particular branch of the Stone-Campbell tradition?
   
   I am very much encouraged by the changes now taking place in Churches of Christ, and I am optimistic about our future. We are a more grace-oriented and Spirit-filled people than at any time in our history, and we are putting our debilitating legalism and sectarianism behind us. The dogma of anti-instrumental music is a dead issue, and we are becoming more loving and accepting of other believers. I predict that in the near future we will be back on track as the unity people to which we have been called.
    

8. Regarding The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), do you think their embrace of denominationalism was the right thing for them to do?
   
   These people, the original wing of the Movement, officially became The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1968. The name has theological significance in that it recognizes the ecumenical Christian Church – the body of Christ at large – and parenthetically claims as Disciples of Christ to be only part of the larger church.
   
   Even though some of their eminent leaders, including  the highly-esteemed W. E. Garrison, objected to the move toward official denominational status, a good case can be made that they did the right thing. They can now speak and act as a church. The other wings of the Movement eventually will also more efficiently organize themselves  – once they are honest enough to admit that they too are denominations. Admitting that we are denominations will not keep us from working and praying for the vision of our pioneers, "Let this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the body of Christ at large."
   
   Admitting that we are a denomination is to face reality. It is a sect that we must not be, which I fear we have been. The historic interpretation of religious movements evolving from "sect to denomination" has validity. Even Campbell admitted he had started a denomination – not a sect, he insisted, but a denomination. A sect claims to be the whole of the church, while a denomination recognizes it is but a part of the whole. Campbell was more honest -- and more realistic -- than some of us!

On May 7 I will address two a.m. assemblies at the Spring Woodlands Church of Christ, 1021 Sawdust Rd., The Woodlands, Tx. (281-387-2304) on "Our Heritage and Destiny As Churches of Christ." After luncheon together there will be an open discussion session.

All these essays are available at www.leroygarrett.org