Essay 12 (12-13-03)

 

WHY DID WE DIVIDE? -- TWO ANSWERS

 

When emphasis is given to the fact that the Stone-Campbell Movement -- sometimes called the Restoration Movement -- emerged on the American frontier in the early 19th century as an effort "to unite the Christians in all the sects," the question always comes up, "If it started as a unity movement, why did it eventually divide again and again?"

 

  The question is all the more germane when it is noted that the Movement remained united through the Civil War -- when most denominations divided -- and for a generation afterwards. The first division -- the separation of Churches of Christ -- did not begin to crystalize until the 1880s, and was not officially declared a separate church until the 1906 Census.

 

  Even outsiders took note that the Campbellites survived the bitter War Between the States without forming two churches -- one northern and one southern -- as did the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. It was surmised that it was because we were loosely organized with no central headquarters, but that was more or less the case with the Baptists as well. One astute observer noted that our unity might have been because of our people's broad view of opinion, allowing for considerable diversity. Even slavery and the war were held as matters of opinion!

 

  This is not to say there were not tensions between our northern and southern churches -- some of them serious -- but we survived as still one church. It led one of our leaders, Moses E. Lard, to opine that if the Civil War did not divide us, nothing could divide us. We would never divide!, he avowed.

 

  Decades earlier Alexander Campbell expressed confidence that his people would never divide into sects as did their neighbors -- so long as they hold to the principles of the ancient faith we have laid down, he cautiously added. When he died in 1866 we were still one church, and even on his death bed he shed tears of joy at the news that his people and the Baptists were talking about uniting in nearby Pittsburgh. The old reformer died with a passion for unity still in his heart and mind.

 

  You know the rest of the story. Once we started dividing -- two major divisions by the first half of the 20th century -- we divided at the rate of about one new faction each decade.  Today, depending on how one wants to count, there are at least eight or ten factions among us with at least 100 congregations -- mainly in Churches of Christ -- who have no fellowship with each other.

 

  What happened? In my own writings I have argued that the reasons usually given are not the real reason -- "the reason is not the reason," which is often the case in trying to explain the cause of a divorce. Contrary to common understanding, we did not divide over instrumental music and societies. We had those "innovations" long before divisions came. The answers are not that simple.

 

  I had the pleasure of personally knowing the two "deans" of Disciples of Christ history, Alfred T. DeGroot of TCU and Winfred E. Garrison, first of the University of Chicago and then of the University of Houston. Together they wrote our first definitive "modern" history of the Movement -- The Disciples of Christ: A History (1948). Moreover, they lived through much of that history, and they were witness to some of the divisions. One could not find more authoritative voices to answer the question I have raised.

 

  But I didn't want a textbook answer. Could they tell me in just a few sentences -- as if on a postcard! -- why we have divided as we have. I was able to ask each of these historians that question -- both in their declining years -- Garrison in a visit with him at the University of Houston, and DeGroot in a visit with him at a retirement center in Dallas long after his retirement from TCU.

 

  Their answers were clear and concise  -- Garrison in just a few sentences, DeGroot in just a few words. Neither knew how the other had answered me. Their answers were different but complimentary. Both were informative and liberating -- worthy of passing along.

 

  Garrison said our divisions emanated from a mistaken view of the New Testament and by making it something it is not -- the misconception that in its pages there is a pattern for a detailed restoration of the primitive church. This "illusion of restorationism" presumes that there was a golden age of primitive Christianity -- something that never was -- and that our mission is to restore that church in name, organization, doctrine and practice. Such a myth brought no unity and only multiplied the divisions because each would-be restorationist had his own interpretation of  what that "golden age" church was supposed to be.

 

  DeGroot said the divisions were simply a matter of, "It could only be one way." That is all he said, leaving it to me -- and Mark Berrier of Dallas Christian College who was with me for that visit -- to fill in the details. He was saying our people were victimized by the old "Either/Or" fallacy. To insist that it has to be either A or B when it might be both A and B, may lead one to make a law where God has left us free, and thereby be factious.

 

  He was saying we can have both congregations that sing with instruments and those who do not, and still be united. We can have churches that support societies or programs like Herald of Truth and those that do not, without division. It doesn't have to be just one way.

 

  The problem has not been how we have sung -- whether acappella or instrumental; or how we have served the Lord's supper -- whether with one cup or many; or how we have done mission work -- agencies or direct support; or how we have interpreted prophecy -- whether premill or amill. The problem has been, as DeGroot pointed out, that one side says It can be only one way -- our way!

 

  The two answers as to why we have divided are complimentary in that patternism (Garrison) has been the basis of exclusivism (DeGroot). One sincere leader looked at the pattern and saw one kind of "restored" church. Another equally sincere brother looked at the same pattern and saw it another way. Both were locked in to a legalistic view of the New Testament.

 

  But it didn't stop there. Each one concluded that his interpretation was the right one, and it could be only one way, so each became an exclusivist with his own sect. We ended up with almost as many factions as there were opinionated leaders.

 

  This is the very sectarian fallacy that our pioneers thought they had solved, and that is what Campbell meant that division would never come so long as we were true to our unity principles. They spelled them out, clear as a bell: In essentials, unity; in opinions and methods, liberty; in all things, love. As Campbell put it, "so long as they hold to Christ who is the Head." Christ is at the center, all else is marginal!

 

  What happened? We lost the vision and we got derailed. We had some leaders following Stone and Campbell -- I call them "editor bishops" -- who sold us a bill of goods, causing us to lose sight of the passion-for-unity people we were supposed to be. They misled us through the multiplication of the essentials, the tyranny of opinionism, and by identifying us as "the right church" instead of a community of forbearing love.

 

  We have blessings to count. We have at last begun to see what happened, and we have begun to make some vital mid-course corrections. PTL!