Those of us in Churches of Christ have from early in our history identified ourselves as "the Restoration Movement," as have the Independent Christian Churches. The Disciples of Christ, the third stream of our heritage, have gradually through the decades backed away from this designation.

"Restoration" in this context is made to mean that: (1) the original apostolic church – which can clearly be identified in detail in the New Testament -- apostatized and ceased to exist; (2) Luther and the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th century sought to "reform" the Roman Catholic Church, not to restore the apostolic church; and so it only produced more sects; (3) Campbell and Stone in the 19^th century went beyond reformation to restoration in that they "restored" the apostolic church, based upon the "pattern" revealed in the New Testament; (4) We in Churches of Christ/Christian Churches are that true, restored church.

This view of restoration has little, if any, emphasis on unity. If it has any view of unity at all it would be unity by conformity – "We have restored the true New Testament church,– in name, doctrine, and practice -- so when you join us or become like us there will be unity. Restorationism by its very nature rejects unity in diversity.

Back in 1934 when the Disciples of Christ, who may be seen as the "mother church" of our Movement, were threatened with still another division, after the defection of Churches of Christ in 1906, created a Commission on Restudy to review their history and to ascertain, if possible, the reason for these divisions.

The Commission, made up of liberals and conservatives alike, gave a report to the Convention a decade later that is one of the more significant documents of our heritage, one that goes far in identifying who we are – or who we are supposed to be – as a people. The report concluded with: "Let us remember the holy purpose that called us into existence," and it identified that purpose as a plea for the unity of all Christians – a "passion for unity," as the report put it.

As for what was causing division in a Movement called by God to be a force for unity, the Commission’s answer was that there was "a difference in understanding with respect to the fundamental purpose of the movement." Some held that it was a restoration movement, that its purpose was to restore the New Testament church in all its relevant details, and that this would bring unity.

Others held that restoration, as usually understood, was more divisive than unifying, and that it created multiple sects, for leaders differed on what constitutes a "restoration of the New Testament church" and made their interpretation a test of fellowship. They held that it was a unity movement, and that opinions about restoration may have to yield to the biblical mandate for unity – unity in diversity.

For almost two centuries now this has been the Albatross about the neck of our Movement, the apparent incompatibility between unity and restoration. Those who see us as a unity movement are suspicious of restorationism, which is usually based on a patternistic interpretation of the New Testament. Those who see us as a restoration movement reject unity in diversity, and claim that unity is realized only by conforming to "the New Testament pattern" – even though they cannot agree among themselves on what precisely that pattern calls for, however honest and sincere they may be.

I would like to put a few observations on the table that may help to clear the air on this apparent conundrum. The question before us is whether unity and restoration can be held in a parity of mutual dependence – or whether they are an oxymoron and hopelessly contradictory.

1. It depends on what one makes restoration mean.

   While our pioneers usually described their movement as a reformation, they sometimes used restoration as a synonym. As Alexander Campbell sometimes put it in describing his mission – "a reformation or a restoration." He wrote an extended series on "A Restoration of the Ancient Order" – but he never called for restoring an ancient pattern. Order had to do with principles and ordinances, not with such details as methods of procedure. Neither Campbell nor Stone believed they were restoring the true church – as if it had ceased to exist. Their mission was rather to restore to the church – that had always existed since Pentecost – such ordinances as baptism, the Lord’s supper, and the authority of Scripture that had long been neglected. And they called for an end to divisions among Christians, and a restoration of unity to the church.
    

2. It depends on what one means by unity.

Barton W. Stone identified four kinds of unity, three of which he deemed false. Head unity is false because unity is not a matter of doctrinal agreement or unanimity of opinion. Book unity is false because creeds can never unite, and even if we interpreted the Bible alike that would not be true unity. Water unity, or baptism, does not unify, even if we all practiced it alike.

Fire unity – the Holy Spirit’s gift to the church – is the only true unity, Stone insisted. We are united when we see the fruit of the Spirit – Christlikeness – in each other. Campbell spoke similarly in his call for "the catholic rule" for unity – a unity based on the morality and the general truths that all believers hold in common. Or as Robert Richardson, the Movement’s first historian, put it, they pled for unity based on "general Christianity." It was a "passion for particulars" that divided the Protestant Reformation into multiple sects, he noted, and the "new Reformation" of Stone and Campbell were seeking to correct this.

When restoration becomes an ism and interprets the New Testament as if it were a detailed pattern for the "restored" church, and when unity is made to mean conformity of viewpoint, then restoration and unity are at odds, and they will only lead to further division. But when restoration is seen as the ongoing renewal and reformation of the church, and unity is viewed in catholic/universal/general terms –rather than based on particular opinions and practices – then there is compatibility between unity and restoration. Unity becomes a goal of restoration or renewal – to restore the church’s lost unity, or, what might be more accurate, to reclaim the Spirit’s gift of unity.

The latter view gave place to the motto that says it all: In essentials (or things universal) unity; in opinions (or particulars) liberty; in all things love.

Note: All previous essays are available at leroygarrett.org