W. T. Moore and Earl I. West on Editors as Bishops

In his 1909 Comprehensive History of the Disciples of Christ, W. T. Moore wrote: "The Disciples have no Diocesan Bishops, and consequently their leading religious periodicals have practically occupied that place."[1] Among historians of the Stone-Campbell Movement, this passage has been paraphrased to say: "The Disciples do not have bishops, they have editors."[2] Moore noted that the editors of the most popular journals and magazines of the movement "came to be practically general bishops, and exercised nearly as much power as the bishops do in some of the religious denominations."[3] Consequently, "there can be no doubt about the fact that, from the beginning of the movement to the present time, the chief authority in regard to all important questions has been the Disciple press."[4] Forty years later, Churches of Christ historian Earl I. West reflected on the significance of periodicals in the history of the Restoration Movement and issued the same judgment: "The chief forces of opinion and policy in the brotherhood have always been the brotherhood publications. Here the issues are discussed. Here the merits of any issue are weighed. Here the opinions are finally fixed."[5]

First and foremost, this observation applies to Alexander Campbell. After his Christian Baptist magazine was discontinued in 1830, its successor, the Millennial Harbinger, became "the chief organ of the movement." Until he died in 1866, Campbell's editorial direction "was generally accepted without question."[6] In addition, Barton W. Stone published his monthly journal, the Christian Messenger, from 1826 until 1845. The journal was plagued by financial troubles and Stone sometimes had to suspend publication, the longest break stretching from January 1837 through August 1840. Nevertheless, as Carl W. Cheatham describes its influence, the Christian Messenger "was an invaluable means of expression and communication for Stone's followers. In the absence of any general organization among the churches, it became the chief instrument of their unity."[7]

Notes

[1] William Thomas Moore, A Comprehensive History of the Disciples of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1909), 12.

[2] In fact, that particular wording, which does not appear in Moore's history, has become something of a written and oral tradition among Restoration historians. It seems perhaps the main creator of the written tradition is Richard T. Hughes. See, for example, his Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of the Churches of Christ in America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 10; Hughes, Part One: The Churches of Christ: A History, in Richard T. Hughes and R. L.  Roberts, The Churches of Christ (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001), 115.

[3] Moore, Comprehensive History of the Disciples, 523.

[4] Ibid., 699.

[5] Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order, vol. 2, 1866-1906 (Indianapolis, IN: Religious Book Service, 1950), 461.

[6] Moore, Comprehensive History of the Disciples, 522-23.

[7] Carl W. Cheatham, "Christian Messenger," Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 194.

Barton W. Stone on the Lord's Supper

Query.--By Elder John Scott of Indiana. "Did the ancient Christians take the Lord's supper every Lord's day.

Answer.--It is evident that from the institution of this ordinance as recorded by the Evangelists, nothing decisive can be adduced as to the frequency of receiving it. The same institution as recorded by Paul, who received it from the Lord, is more decisive as to time. I.Cor. 11. 25,26. "This do ye, as oft as you drink it, in rememberance [sic] of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." Yet it cannot from this be determined, how often, whether once, twice, or a dozen times a year. Some have thought that Acts 2. 42, 46, refers to the Lord's supper; but others have thought differently. It cannot be determined, which opinion is most correct. I incline to think with the latter, though I am not positive.

Acts 20. 7, seems to me to decide how often the ancient christians received the supper, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them." From this it is plain that the disciples came together on the first day of the week, and the great end of their coming together was to break bread. This was the principle part of their worship, mingled with songs of praise, with prayer, reading the scriptures and exhortation or preaching. This is further confirmed by I. Cor. 11,20, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." The meaning of the Apostle, doubtless, is this "you come together professedly to eat the Lord's supper; but your abuse of this holy ordinance, is a profanation of it rather than anything else." These [229] are all the passages in the N. Testament on this subject,& these plainly to my mind prove that the practice of the ancient christians was, to take the Lord's supper every first day of the week. This, we are informed by church historians, continued to be the constant practice of the church for the first three centuries after Christ. Whenever the church shall be restored to her former glory, she will again receive the Lord's supper on every first day of the week. Certainly, then, christians should seriously take this subject into consideration and reform.

EDITOR.

Barton W. Stone, Christian Messenger 4, no. 10 (September 1830), 228-29.

"Timothy" on Christian Communion and the Lord's Supper, The Christian Messenger, 1828 (Part 1 of 2)

What did leaders of the early Restoration Movement believe and teach about the Lord's Supper? And, how did their teachings influence Christian churches affiliated with the movement when it came to their participation in the Supper?

As part of my attempt to get a handle on this topic, I decided that my next project would be a survey of a three-part series of articles that appeared in successive issues of Barton W. Stone's monthly magazine, The Christian Messenger. The series can be found in the following numbers:

Volume 2, number 12
Volume 3, number 1
Volume 3, number 2

These three issues are dated October, November, and December 1828, respectively.

Observation and Disclaimer

There are a few books and doctoral dissertations that have been written about nineteenth-century Restoration Movement thought on the Lord's Supper. But before reading them, I've chosen to get acquainted with the primary literature on my own.

Related to this, there are some who say that one should read the historiography first, and then go digging through the primary sources and archives. When it comes to graduate training in the discipline of History, this is the American model.

I have to say that I much prefer the European model, according to which students are turned loose in the archives before they are required to begin mastering some of the secondary literature. Why? For one thing, there is a certain authority, confidence, and set of questions that come as a result of having "been there and done that." When you know that you know what you know because you've seen it for yourself, that's indispensable. There is just no substitute for it.

On the practical side, this also helps you to know whether you're going to like archival research, or at least have the stomach for it. This, I believe, ought to come early. I myself enjoy going to new places and looking around in archives, courthouses, cemeteries, etc. But I realize that this is not for everyone. If interested in a vicarious experience along this line, one might consult a book by the French social historian Arlette Farge titled The Allure of the Archives.

So, Who Was "Timothy"?

Before getting into the material, the reader is immediately confronted by an unusual question about these three articles: Who wrote them? The author identifies himself as "Timothy," the name of the Apostle Paul's favorite son in the faith.

To those familiar with nineteenth-century Stone-Campbell journalism, the use of the pseudonym comes as no surprise. As historian David I. McWhirter observes, writers in the early Stone-Campbell Movement often published their thoughts using cryptic names in order to veil or completely conceal their identities.[1]

Although false names satisfied the playfulness, or the genuine concerns of the writers for anonymity, not all of the readers were amused or appreciative. In fact, several months before he published the series authored by "Timothy," editor Barton Stone acknowledged that some who subscribed to The Christian Messenger disliked pseudonyms, and he asked his contributors to stop using them:

We have many letters addressed to us by our patrons, requesting our correspondents to affix their proper names to their communications, and no longer conceal themselves under fictitious names. I cannot see the impropriety of the request, and therefore urge my correspondents to comply with it.[2]

Clearly, Stone agreed with his readers dissatisfied by pseudonyms. This was a significant complaint against a magazine that constantly struggled to survive. After three years of publishing the Messenger, Stone lamented that although he had 2,000 subscribers, paid receipts barely covered the costs of paper and printing.[3] Nevertheless, when it came to the articles under study in this post, Stone permitted the author to use the pseudonym "Timothy." Who was he?

In their index to The Christian Messenger, Barry A. Jones and Charles C. Dorsey provide a list of all of the pseudonyms that appear in the magazine. Interestingly, they identify only one of the pseudonymous writers, even though a handful of others are fairly well known. Jones and Dorsey indicate that "Timothy" was one Thomas Smith.[4] Naturally, this raises the next question: Who was he?

At least a few primary sources fill in some of the blanks and provide a partial answer. The Biography of Elder Barton Warren Stone includes part of a letter written to Stone by "Elder Thomas Smith, of Fayette county, Kentucky." Smith is described as "one of the oldest preachers in Kentucky," who "for talents and piety . . . occupies a very enviable position." It is further said of Smith that he knew Stone for forty years.[5]

In his Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Robert Richardson states that in late 1831 and early 1832-- around the time of the formal union at Lexington between the Kentucky "Christians" and the "Disciples" or "Reformers"--the most prominent minister of the Christian Church in Lexington was Thomas Smith. Richardson notes that Smith was

a man of more than ordinary abilities and attainments, and long associated with the movement of B. W. Stone. He was an excellent preacher and was considered a skillful debater. He possessed withal a very amiable disposition, and was highly esteemed by Mr. Campbell, whom he often accompanied during his visits in Kentucky.[6]

Thomas Smith, the author of our series, was a friend and co-worker of Barton Stone's, and an acquaintance of Alexander Campbell's. He served as a prominent leader among those connected to the "Christian" movement in Kentucky, especially in Lexington, a city highly significant to the Stone-Campbell Movement.

In my next post on the topic, I will briefly survey the contents of Smith's series, and suggest a few ideas about its historical significance.

Notes

[1] David I. McWhirter, "Pseudonyms," in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), p. 614.

[2] The Christian Messenger, 2, no. 3 (January 1828), p. 72. See also Lewis L. Snyder, "Speaking from the Shadows: Pen Names of Pioneers," Discipliana 51, no. 1 (Spring 1991), p. 7.

[3] Carl W. Cheatham, "Christian Messenger," in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, p. 194.

[4] Barry A. Jones and Charles C. Dorsey, eds., An Index to the Christian Messenger (N.p.: 1984), 85-86, list all of the pseudonyms that appeared in Stone's magazine. Interestingly, they identify only one of the pseudonymous writers: "Timothy," they tell us, was Thomas Smith. James L. McMillan, [james.l.mcmillan@gmail.com], "REPLY: 'Timothy' in The Christian Messenger," in Stone-Campbell Group, [stone-campbell@acu.edu], 11 January 2018, notes that there are more pseudonyms in the Christian Messenger for which we know the true name. McMillan gives three examples: "Candidus" is Alexander Campbell, "Archippus" is James Fishback, and "Philip" is Walter Scott. Thirty years before Jones and Dorsey identified "Timothy" as Thomas Smith, archivist and historian Claude Spencer, "Pseudonyms," Discipliana 11 (1951-52), 36, listed "Timothy" as one of the pseudonyms which had not been identified.

[5] Barton Warren Stone, The Biography of Elder Barton Warren Stone, Written by Himself, with Additions and Reflections by Eld. John Rogers (Cincinnati: J. A. and U. P. James, 1847), 118. For this reference, I am indebted to Michael Strickland, [michaelstrickland92@gmail.com], "REPLY: 'Timothy' in The Christian Messenger," in Stone-Campbell Group, [stone-campbell@acu.edu], 11 January 2018.

[6] Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. Two Volumes in One (Cincinnati: R. W. Carroll, 1872), II, 384. For this reference, I am indebted to Bruce Hudson, [bhgoose@aol.com], "REPLY: 'Timothy' in The Christian Messenger," in Stone-Campbell Group, [stone-campbell@acu.edu], 11 January 2018.

Stone-Campbell Restoration History and Teaching: A Brief Survey

The following is a brief overview of the history and outlook of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. I wrote it in order provide basic information to readers of an academic paper who are not of Disciples heritage, who are not members of the Christian Church or Churches of Christ. My goal here is to evaluate and improve this statement. I welcome all respectful questions and comments: 

The phrase Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement refers to a back-to-the-Bible tradition that grew out of the teachings of Barton W. Stone (1772-1844, pictured here), Thomas Campbell (1763-1854), and, above all, his illustrious son, Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). The great evangelist of the movement was Walter Scott (1796-1861), a distant relative of the famous Scottish novelist by that name.[1] These leaders and their followers pursued a distinct religious goal: the restoration of primitive Christianity. They spoke of restoring “the ancient gospel,” the Bible’s most basic claims about Christ which everyone must believe and respond to in obedience. They sought to discover the biblical progression by which one becomes a Christian, and they identified the following steps: faith, an assent to the claim that "Jesus is the Christ, the son of God" (Matthew 16:16); repentance, a radical turn from sin and self, and a turn toward God; baptism by immersion for the forgiveness of sins, the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and the promise of eternal life.[2] They also set out to restore what Alexander Campbell called “the ancient order of things,” especially the Bible's teaching about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the congregational offices of elder and deacon, church discipline, and approved names for believers and for the church. Additionally, restoration pertained to matters more personal and inward: to self-control, pure speech, right living, the love of mercy, and the hopeful spirit of the New Testament.[3]

The project of restoration involved tearing down as well as building up. Christians of the Stone-Campbell movement sought to erase all distinctions between clergy and laity. Along with what often seemed to them the arbitrary authority of religious elites, they also rejected the authority of creeds, confessions, extra-biblical traditions, and specialized, learned theology. They replaced all such traditions with a populist hermeneutic according to which every person was welcomed, even expected, to read and understand the Bible for oneself. Having embraced the tenets of Enlightenment philosophy and American freedom, Stone, the Campbells, and like-minded believers acted upon their conviction that the imposition of illegitimate authority in matters of faith provoked disunity and amounted to a certain type of idolatry, a defiance of Almighty God. Such pseudo-authorities were never needed anyway, since the essential teachings of the Bible, the Word of God, could be understood and agreed upon by all responsible people who were truly seeking the Lord.[4]

The movement both commended and critiqued the Christian past. For his part, Alexander Campbell celebrated the goals and achievements of sixteenth-century reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Martin Bucer.[5] "The Protestant Reformation," he wrote, "is proved to have been one of the most splendid eras in the history of the world, and must long be regarded by the philosopher and the philanthropist as one of the most gracious interpositions in behalf of the whole human race."[6] Yet much like the Puritans, Campbell complained that the earlier reformers had not gone far enough. They were certainly on the right track. But to have a restored church, the initiatives of the sixteenth century would have to be "carried out to their legitimate issue."[7] In Campbell's view, no group in Christian history had ever truly united by building "upon the Bible alone." But that had changed "during the present generation."

Tired of new creeds and new parties in religion, and of the numerous abortive efforts to reform the reformation; convinced from the Holy Scriptures, from observation and experience, that the union of the disciples of Christ is essential to the conversion of the world, and that the correction and improvement of no creed, or partisan establishment in Christendom, could ever become the basis of such a union, communion, and co-operation, as would restore peace to a church militant against itself, or triumph to the common salvation; a few individuals, about the commencement of the present century, began to reflect upon the ways and means to restore primitive Christianity.[8]

As the foregoing suggests, the ultimate goal of the Stone-Campbell Movement was the unity of all believers in Christ, a oneness that was essential the Lord's plan to redeem the entire world. Leaders often noted that on the night when Jesus was betrayed into the hands of the authorities, he prayed that his followers would be one, even as he and God the Father were one. According to Jesus as he prayed to God the Father, the purpose of Christian unity was that “the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me” (John 17:23). The unity of the church was necessary for a lost world to believe the gospel, to recognize the true identity of Jesus Christ as well as God’s unique love for those who follow Christ [9]

Ironically, sometime after the Civil War, Christians associated with what Alexander Campbell called “the current reformation,” a movement designed to unify all true believers on the basis of the simple gospel and plain Bible teaching, splintered into two distinct groups. On one side stood those Christian Churches that would eventually give rise to the Disciples of Christ denomination and the independent Christian Churches. (Those two now-distinct churches emerged as separate groups during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries). Predominately, these congregations were in northern states, with power centers in places like Cincinnati and Indianapolis. They tended to value the later Alexander Campbell’s emphasis on Christian forbearance and unity at the expense of doctrinal particulars. However, influenced by then soldier-preacher and future U.S. President James A. Garfield (1831-1881), representatives of the northern congregations used resolutions issued by the Disciples’ American Christian Missionary Society to officially endorse the Union.

On the other side stood congregations that typically wore the name Church of Christ. Following the war, these churches were influenced by leaders like Tolbert Fanning (1810-1874)—who as a young man had been mentored by Alexander Campbell—and especially Fanning’s protégé, David Lipscomb (1831-1917). Both Fanning and Lipscomb resided in Middle Tennessee. The Churches of Christ were characterized by their commitment to the earlier Alexander Campbell’s emphasis on biblical primitivism and strict doctrine. For them, this specifically meant opposition to instrumental music in worship, and to all para-church institutions like the Disciples’ American Christian Missionary Society, which members of the Churches of Christ insisted were not authorized by Scripture. Unlike the Disciples of Christ, who prized Christian unity, the Churches of Christ more often saw the restoration of the faith and practice of the New Testament church not as a means, but as an end.[10]

With two fellowships of autonomous congregations having gone their separate ways and having begun to grow apart from one another, it fell to the federal Census Bureau in 1906 to enquire, call attention to the fact of division, and finally provide, at least for their purposes, distinct names for the groups. Nowadays, three discrete church bodies trace their roots back to Stone and Campbell: the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which embraces its denominational identity, the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (sometimes referred to as Independents), and the acappella Churches of Christ.[11]

Beginning in the early decades of the twentieth century, historians referred to this tradition as the American Restoration Movement, or simply the Restoration Movement.[12] The more recent moniker, Stone-Campbell Movement, first appeared more as a descriptor than as a title per se, in, for example, Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker’s 1975 history of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) titled Journey in Faith.[13] The newer name has had some success in replacing the older one, especially among scholars, ever since 1981, when Leroy Garrett published the first edition of his interpretive survey, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches.[14]

Notes

[1] Perhaps the best source for becoming acquainted with the Stone-Campbell Movement is Christian History 106 (2013), an issue of the magazine titled "The church to end all churches? The unifying vision of the Stone-Campbell Movement." All four leading figures of the early movement have entries in both the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement and Oxford's multivolume American National Biography. Although the Restoration Movement, sometimes called the Stone-Campbell Movement, is often considered an American phenomenon, it is significant that three of the four founders mentioned here were not born in America. Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell were born in Northern Ireland, and Walter Scott was born in Scotland. More to the point, as James L. Gorman has recently argued, "[t]he influences of the evangelical missionary movement that emerged throughout the transatlantic region in the 1790s was the clearest and most comprehensive context that produced the earliest manifestation of the Campbell Movement in 1809." See Gorman, Among the Early Evangelicals: The Transatlantic Origins of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2017), 15. For a summary of Gorman's important work, see the author's review in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70, no. 1 (January 2019), 203-04.

[2] See, for example, Walter Scott, The Gospel Restored, A Discourse of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ in which the Facts, Principles, Duties, and Privileges of Christianity are Arranged, Defined, and Discussed, and the Gospel in Its Various Parts Shewn to Be Adapted to the Nature and Necessities of Man in His Present Condition (Cincinnati, OH: Donogh, 1836).

[3] Here, the best primary source is Alexander Campbell's thirty-two-part series titled "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," installments of which appeared in his monthly magazine The Christian Baptist from 1823 to 1829. The first appeared in The Christian Baptist 2, no. 7 (February 7, 1825): 124-28. The final installment, "Official Names and Titles," appeared in Volume 7, no. 2 (September 7, 1829): 585-86.

[4] See Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), esp. 3-46 and 67-80. For an explanation of the Puritan roots of the Stone-Campbell Movement, especially its Bible-centered primitivism, see Theodore Dwight Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension of Puritanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988). A good overview of the basic theological outlook of American restorationist leaders can be found E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), ch. 14. Paul M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, and D. Newell Williams provide a fine review of the historiography of the movement in “Stone-Campbell History Over Three Centuries: A Survey and Analysis,” in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, xxi-xxxv. For a good historical summary of the worldwide Restoration Movement, see Douglas A. Foster, "Disciples of Christ," Encyclopedia of Protestantism, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Routledge, 2004), 2:593-97.

[5] Richard L. Harrison, Jr., "Alexander Campbell on Luther and the Reformation," Lexington Theological Quarterly 19, no. 4 (1984), 131-32. See also my article, "Why Should We Care about Martin Luther?" Christian Chronicle 74, no. 10 (October 2017), 26.

[6] Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, 2nd ed. (Pittsburgh, PA: Forrester & Campbell, 1839), 3.

[7] Ibid., 179.

[8] Ibid., 5.

[9] The unity of the church is a prominent theme in the two great “charter documents” of the Stone-Campbell Movement. The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, signed by, among others, Barton W. Stone in 1804, quotes from “the seven ones” passage found in Paul’s Epistle of the Ephesians, chapter 4. The “Imprimis” of The Last Will and Testament reads: “We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.” Similarly, Thomas Campbell’s 1809 Declaration and Address cites or alludes to Christ’s prayer for the unity of his followers, recorded in John 17, as well as to “the seven ones” passage several times. See Christopher R. Hutson, “Scripture Index to the Declaration and Address,” in The Quest for Christian Unity, Peace, and Purity in Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address: Text and Studies, eds. Thomas H. Olbricht and Hans Rollmann (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000), 129-47. See also Alexander Campbell, "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. No. III," Christian Baptist 2, no. 9 (April 4, 1825), 198-205.

[10] On the earlier versus later Alexander Campbell as a key to understanding some of the differences between Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, see Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 32-44. For some of his insights, Hughes credits an unpublished manuscript by Don Haymes, “A Battle of Giants: Alexander Campbell and Bishop John Baptist Purcell in Cincinnati, 1837.” For restoration as the means to unity versus restoration serving the goal of purity and, thus, salvation, see Jay Smith, “Notes on Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address,” Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 3 (Third Quarter, 1961): 113-18.

[11] The names used in the Library of Congress subject authority records are: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and Churches of Christ. Catalogers and researchers sometimes refer to these three groups simply as Disciples, 4Cs, and 2Cs. Although restorationist champions of undenominational Christianity would no doubt object to the use of such terms, everyone conversant with the history understands exactly what they mean. The state-of-the-art treatment of the worldwide history of the entire movement can be found in D. Newell Williams, Douglas A. Foster, and Paul M. Blowers, eds. The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2013), especially chaps. 1-5. The history of the nineteenth-century American Restoration Movement and, after division, the twentieth-century Churches of Christ is best told by Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith.

[12] See, for example, M. M. Davis, The Restoration Movement of the Nineteenth Century (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company, 1913); Charles Crossfield Ware, North Carolina Disciples of Christ: A History of Their Rise and Progress, and Their Contribution to Their General Brotherhood (St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Publication, 1927), 23, 52, 62, 78, 137, 323, 333, 343, and 372; Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement (Los Angeles: Citizen Print Shop, 1945); Enos E. Dowling, The Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1964); and, more recently, Henry E. Webb, In Search of Christian Unity: A History of the Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1990).

[13] Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker, Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Saint Louis: Bethany Press, 1975), 149, 253, 443.

[14] Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1981). Because Garrett's book contained "Stone-Campbell" in its title, some have assumed that Garrett coined the phrase. Yet it actually predates even McAllister and Tucker. For example, Allie Vandaripe, "Perryville: Motorcade to Cane Ridge," (Danville) Kentucky Advocate, July 31, 1955, describes the Cane Ridge Meeting House as follows: "This historic spot is greatly revered by all congregations of the Christian Church, since it was at this place more than a century and a half ago that the Stone-Campbell Movement began in the one-room structure." The author seems to be using what was to her a familiar term.

"The Lord's Supper" in The Christian Messenger, 1831

John Allen Gano (1805-1887, pictured at left) was a protege of Barton W. Stone and served as a prominent leader among the "Stoneite" Christians in Kentucky and nearby states. His career as an evangelist covered the sixty years from 1827 to 1887, during which time Gano baptized more than 10,000 people. [1]

In 1831, Gano wrote two pieces about the Lord's Supper for The Christian Messenger, a monthly that Stone had published from Georgetown, Kentucky beginning in 1826. His second piece, a letter to the editor, was a response to an opponent named John G. Ellis. After Gano published a letter of rejoinder, Ellis then wrote in response to Gano's rejoinder. Thus, in their exchange the two men wrote a total of four pieces.

On occasion, Editor Stone himself would briefly weigh in on the topic and the discussion between Gano and Ellis. This post will review and comment on the entire discussion as it unfolded and on the outcome of the exchange.

1. John Allen Gano on "The Lord's Supper" 

Gano's initial article, titled simply "The Lord's Supper," appeared in the Messenger dated February 1831. He began by raising the question of frequency: "How often," he asked, "is it the privilege and duty of the Christians, to attend to the Lord's Supper?" He noted that when Jesus instituted the Supper in Luke 22:19, he said to his apostles "this do in remembrance of me." But clearly, that command did not address the question of frequency.

Gano assumed that "the gospel system is perfect, that its laws and commands are perfect" and that Christians are thereby "thoroughly furnished." Consequently, he wrote,

we feel disposed to examine farther, and if not from the lips of the Saviour, from the practice of his apostles at least, learn the proper understanding of this command, and the attention due to it.

From there, Gano observed that according to Acts 2:42, "breaking of bread," which he equated with the Lord's Supper, was one of the "acts of public worship" listed in that verse in which the earliest Christians at Jerusalem participated. From Acts 20:7, he concluded that not only did the first-century church assemble "upon the first day of the week," they did so in order "to break bread," that is, to observe the Lord's Supper.

Gano added that Paul's instructions to the church at ancient Corinth reinforces the basic point. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly corrects and warns the congregation because of their abuse of the Lord's Supper. But, wrote Gano, "how could they abuse that, which they did not attend to?" In other words, the specific way in which Paul addresses the problem underscores weekly observance of the Lord's Supper as the New Testament pattern:

Let us imagine one thus addresses his congregation, "Friends, when you come together, it is not to hear preaching, for one sleeps, another laughs, and another talks." Would not such a reproof or admonition plainly prove, that they did come, or ought to have come together to hear preaching? If so, the language of the passage just cited, being similar in form, this conclusion irresistibly follows; That [the earliest Christians] met every first day; when they did meet it was to eat the Lord's Supper; therefore [Christians in all times] eat it every first day of the week.  

In fact, he argued, based on the relevant New Testament passages, someone could just as easily deny that the first day of the week is when Christians are to assemble as he could deny that the primary purpose of the assembly is to share in the Lord's Supper.

Gano bolstered his case by referring to "the History of the Christian Church, for the first three centuries of its existence so far as it has come to us." He emphasized that early Christian tradition is "not inspired" and that all believers should establish their faith and practice on "the Bible alone." Nevertheless, for comparison's sake, early Christian history establishes that believers "assembled on the first day of the week, sung hymns, prayed, commemorated the death and resurrection of the Lord."

Finally, Gano responded to the possible objection that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper would make it all too common, and that its repeated practice would descend into cold formalism. Gano replied that this danger is connected to anything that Christians do repeatedly, since "every act of religious worship not attended to in the Spirit of Christ, is mere form." On the other hand, if the Lord, by the inspired teaching of this apostles, has taught us to break bread upon the first day of the week, then "assuredly it becomes us humbly to obey."

2. Barton W. Stone's Remarks

Immediately following Gano's article, Stone added a few of his own "Remarks." As if he anticipated a negative response from some who read the Messenger, Stone commented that Gano's arguments were "plausible, if not convincing to all." Further, he invited those who "may think differently" to "communicate for the C. Messenger the result of their investigation," yet always in "the meekness and gentleness of Christ." He also encouraged Gano "to continue for the Messenger his exhibitions of truth."

3. A Response from John G. Ellis

The very next issue of The Christian Messenger, dated March, 1831, included a letter sent from Dry Creek in Campbell County, Kentucky. The writer, a certain John G. Ellis, asserted that Gano's position on the Lord's Supper was "dangerous to Christian liberty." [2] What was the problem?

Ellis noted that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death until he come." This language, he insisted, denies any restriction of the Supper to the first day of the week.

Furthermore, while Acts 20:7 indicates that "the disciples came together to break bread," these words should not be understood as a reference to "communion" since "neither wine nor cup is once named." Instead, here the breaking of bread should be understood in the same sense as it appears in Acts 27:35. According to that verse, Paul "took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it, he began to eat." Ellis pointed out that both passages include breaking bread, while neither passage mentions cup or wine. If one verse refers to the Lord's Supper, why not the other?

Ellis asserted that Acts 2 presents the same ambiguity. According to Gano's interpretation, the "breaking of bread" in verse 42 supposedly refers to the Lord's Supper, while "breaking bread from house to house" in verse 46 supposedly means the regular sharing of common meals among the earliest Christians.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11, Ellis pointed out that the chapter nowhere specifies that the church at Corinth typically gathered "on the first day of the week." It is certainly true, wrote Ellis, "that Paul in these verses specially refers to the Lord's supper." Yet, Paul does not specifically mention "a special day." Moreover, none of stories of institution in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke indicate that the disciples did or should eat the Lord's Supper every Sunday. Ellis concluded,

Seeing this is the fact my Christian brethren, let us be careful not to take the suppositions of poor erring man, though he may possess all the acquired knowledge of the world. . . . I assure my Christian brethren, that I am firm in the belief, that if I were honestly and conscientiously to celebrate the Lord's supper every day in the week, there is not a passage in the good word of God, that forbids it. On the contrary, it tells me "as often as you do this . . . "  . . . I am certain that [the] Lawgiver, and his law will ultimately prevail over human wisdom, self aggrandizement, and tradition of fallible man. 

4. Gano's Rejoinder

As one might expect, the very next issue of the Messenger, dated April 1831, contains a rejoinder to Ellis.

By way of review, Gano observes that his original piece set out to show "that the Holy Scriptures do authorize and require the breaking of bread, or celebration of the Lord's Supper every first day of the week."  Contrary to Ellis's suggestion, he denies that his article endangers Christian liberty. It is true the gospel means freedom from many things, including sin, condemnation, Jewish ritual, etc. Nevertheless, the gospel does not mean freedom "from Christ, his laws, authority and service." Although free, Christians "are bound to obey" their Lord.

With that, Gano sets out to answer the particulars of Ellis's letter. He begins with Ellis's contention that Acts 20:7 does not refer to the Lord's Supper. This is supposedly true "because the cup and wine are not mentioned." Yet Ellis assumes that 1 Corinthians 11:30 does refer to the Supper even though "the words drink, cup and wine" are likewise missing, an obvious inconsistency in the argument.

Next, Gano argues, contra Ellis, that if the language of "breaking bread" in Acts 27:35 does not refer to the Lord's Supper, this is no reason to conclude that all such language never refers to the Supper. Gano asserts that the differences "can only be understood by attending particularly to the context." Do not the various contexts of Acts 2:42, 20:7, and 27:35 reveal different meanings? Are there not clear differences between giving thanks at one's dinner table at home, compared to giving thanks at the Lord's table in the Christian assembly?

Besides, if in the Scriptures all instances of "breaking bread" are the same, then how can we resist the conclusion that the Lord has no say, and that mere humans have the authority "to decide the whole matter" regarding frequency? Does not Ellis's position "at once introduce confusion and disorder?"

Gano suggests that 1 Corinthians 16:2 further clarifies the matter: "On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it in the treasury." He regards this the best translation of the verse, which "proves they met every first day at Corinth." This verse, when combined with Paul's instructions about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, and with Acts 20:7, points to an established order, an order that prevailed during the time when "Jesus alone reigned among his professed followers." Gano concludes his response to Ellis by asking:

Is there a single passage of scripture, that speaks of monthly meetings by name? Is there any authority in the word of God for communing only every three months, or once a year? Is not this remembering a crucified Saviour in his institution very seldom? who is to determine, when we shall eat the supper, if the apostles have not? If a majority of each church are to determine, do the minority eat oftener or seldomer, without being considered disorderly? My object is information from the Bible, for the truth's sake, under the humbling sense I feel of my limited abilities, and information.

5. Ellis's Response to Gano's Rejoinder

The June 1831 issue of The Christian Messenger contains a second letter from John G. Ellis. Apparently, he was not persuaded by what Gano had written in defense of his article on "The Lord's Supper." And Ellis wanted to publish a follow-up statement of his own.

Ellis maintained that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper is not a scriptural precept, making the words of 1 Corinthians 11:26--"for as often as ye eat this bread"--the centerpiece of his argument.

He ridiculed Gano's distinction between public and private acts of worship by again referring to Acts 27:37 and commenting: "Here [Gano] wishes to hold out an idea that Paul did not perform an act of public worship on board of the ship, in giving thanks in the presence of 276 people." (What Ellis does not acknowledge is that Gano's distinction was between worship at home and in other private settings, compared to worship in the presence of the gathered church. The story in Acts 27 describes a scene that hardly fits either of Gano's categories).

Ellis denied that Acts 20:7 carried the force of "a command of Christ and his Apostles." He asserted that "if there is a command in all the New Testament to meet every first day of the week, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, I cannot find it."

Not even when using "Campbell's translation" of 1 Corinthians 16:2 can Gano provide "even the shadow of a command to meet every first day of the week, to celebrate the Lord's Supper." All such argument amounts to human "law-making or legislating for the church of Christ." Ellis is quick to note that he believed it was "the duty of christians to meet often together, and to commune or celebrate the Lord's Supper often." What he objected to was the idea that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper should be regarded a matter of following Scripture. Ellis closed with the following:

I can assure my christian brethren that I do not intend to write another sentence for the C.M. nor any other paper on the subject of weekly communion, as I am fully of the opinion that the scriptures authorise no such thing. I wish to invite my C. Brethren to examine minutely what bro. G. and myself have written, and compare it with the word of God. My prayer is that all christians may closely adhere to the word of God, that we may all grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

6. Barton W. Stone's Final "Remarks"

By way of wrapping up the exchange between Gano and Ellis, Editor Stone penned a few concluding remarks. He noted that both men, in private correspondence with Stone, indicated they would not be sending anything more on the subject. Both men were willing to end the discussion, "to rest it with the public to examine, and to decide its claims to truth." Then Stone added,

It must be acknowledged that but little is said in scripture with reference to the weekly communion, but all must acknowledge, that it was the practice in the first centuries of the church. Let us never make this subject a cause of debate and contention amongst us. My mind has been long in the belief that weekly communion was according to truth, yet I could never find sufficient scriptural reasons to convince my brethren that it was a positive command. What satisfied me, could not satisfy them. We are all free, nor would I willingly take away the liberty of one christian.

Two Observations

The exchange between Gano and Ellis in the pages of The Christian Messenger is remarkable on at least two different counts. First, anyone who reads Alexander Campbell's series "On the Breaking of Bread," which appeared in several issues of The Christian Baptist during 1825, will immediately conclude that Gano's 1831 article, "The Lord's Supper," is essentially a digest of Campbell's series. The similarities between the two are striking.

In fact, reading Gano after reading Campbell on this topic is a bit like reading the Gospel of Mark after the Gospel of Matthew. Campbell's series of four articles is significantly longer than Gano's article. But the general correspondence between the two is undeniable. Not only does Gano cite the same passages (Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11), which is predictable, he also makes the same kind of inferential arguments. Finally, Gano bolsters his case for every-Sunday observance of the Lord's Supper by citing early Christian history, exactly as Campbell did, including the very same caveats. Even the order of the material is virtually the same. In short, the correspondence between Campbell and Gano is unmistakable. The conclusion that Gano had read Campbell's series, and that his article is essentially a synopsis of Campbell, is irresistible.

Second, anyone who reads the entire exchange between Gano and Ellis is likely to sympathize with Gano, as I do, in his inability to nail down anything in the debate over specific New Testament texts. It appears that two unspoken issues stand behind this frustration. First, unlike Gano, Ellis does not believe that the New Testament contains an implicit outline of worship for Christians, one that specifies a certain day for the assembly as well as specific activities. Second, Gano accepted an approved example in Scripture as carrying the same force of a positive command. Ellis did not. As one might expect, on both of these questions Gano's view corresponds to that of Campbell.

Notes

[1] Jerry B. Rushford, "Gano, John Allen (1805-1887)" in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 347. Rushford "wrote the book" on Gano, a 1972 master's thesis completed at Abilene Christian College in Abilene, Texas, titled "The Apollos of the West": The Life of John Allen Gano.

[2] John G. Ellis was not as well-known as John Allen Gano. For example, while Gano merits his own article in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, Ellis's name does not appear in the Index of that work. Still, Ellis does seem to have had an important ministry in Campbell County, Kentucky. For example, in an 1839 issue of The Millennial Harbinger, Ellis apparently responded to a request from Campbell for a status report on the congregations with which Ellis was familiar. His brief description of congregations near Dry Creek in Campbell County, Kentucky, indicates that Ellis had conducted an active ministry among those churches.

Restoration Leaders on the "Untaught Question" about the Lord's Supper

Regarding the Lord's Supper, should churches invite all in attendance to participate, permit only members in good standing to partake, or serve the Supper to all and leave it to individuals to decide? In 1861, this question and larger, related issues were addressed in the pages of The Millennial Harbinger by three important leaders of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement: Isaac Errett (pictured here), Robert Richardson, and W. K. Pendleton. [1] Their teaching as well as their references to contemporary practices of the congregations they knew provide a window on what some, certainly not all, restorationists of the Civil War era thought about this aspect of the Lord's Supper.

What was the historical background to their discussion? According to Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker, young Alexander Campbell and other reformers of the early first generation defended "close communion," which in their circles meant "the practice of admitting only believers baptized by immersion to the service of Communion." By contrast, Barton W. Stone and like-minded Christians in Kentucky did not forbid "defective believers" from participating in the Lord's Supper. Eventually, Campbell's outlook changed and his position moved closer to the one held by Stone.

As Campbell moved into maturity, he modified his view and joined some of the followers in shifting from close to open communion. The impulse to reflect the oneness of God's people around the Lord's Table was stronger than the will to hold fast to an exclusivist interpretation of New Testament Christianity. [2]

Such were the competing principles with which the first and all subsequent generations of restorationists have had to grapple. Is the Restoration Movement primarily motivated by Christian unity or doctrinal purity? Or, as McAllister and Tucker put it, "Is the church primarily an inclusivist or an exclusivist community?" [3]

Before examining the specific comments of Errett, Richardson, and Pendleton about the Lord's Supper, it would be best to establish the specific context in which they were written. Apparently, the three responses were occasioned by a letter from a certain "Bro. Hawley." According to Richardson's reply, a discussion had emerged "among the brethren in Detroit in regard to the question of open or close communion." The reference to Detroit provides an important clue. It is most likely that the author was Richard Hawley (1815?-1884). He attended the inaugural, 1849 meeting of the American Christian Missionary Society in Cincinnati and was elected one of its officers. Among the officers of the ACMS, he served as one of twenty vice presidents, who were geographically distributed. Hawley represented Disciples in the State of Michigan. [4]

"Bro. Hawley," as his name appears, sent the same letter or a similar one to both Errett and Richardson, who then responded in the pages of the Harbinger. W. K. Pendleton, then a co-editor of the magazine, also offered his reflections on the issues.

Isaac Errett

In his response written from Muir, Michigan, Isaac Errett began by acknowledging that the plea of the present reformation was to bring back the conditions that presumably existed among the churches of apostolic times. However, because "the church has not yet half recovered," he wrote, the people of God were "scattered and divided" among the various Protestant sects. Consequently, Christians of the Restoration Movement, immersed as believers, were compelled "to recognize as Christians many who have been in error on baptism, but who in the spirit of obedience are Christians indeed. (See Rom. ii. 28, 29)."

Referring to the various sects who had taught much truth over many generations, Errett insisted that it would never do "to unchristianize those on whose shoulders we are standing, and because of whose labors we are enabled to see some truths more clearly than they." Therefore, in regard to the Lord's Supper, the standard practice was "neither to invite nor reject particular classes of persons, but to spread the table in the name of the Lord, for the Lord's people, and allow all to come who will, each on his own responsibility."

Errett reported his impression that "fully two-thirds of our churches in the United States occupy this position," with those churches that were originally Baptist being "rather more unyielding." He concluded with words of both conviction and generosity: "For myself, while fully devoted to our plea, I have no wish to limit and fetter my sympathies and affections to our own people."

Robert Richardson

For his part, Robert Richardson argued that because Christianity in apostolic times was not divided into organized sects, the question at hand, being "anterior to the apostacy," could not be discussed or decided on the basis of Scripture. In other words, because the first-century church was presumably united on all essentials, the New Testament did not contain an answer to the question of whether a church should permit unimmersed believers to participate in the Lord's Supper. Therefore, "we neither discuss nor determine this question. We simply leave it to each individual to determine for himself. It is really, as the brethren . . .  say, an 'untaught question'."

Citing Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:28--"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat . . . ,"--Richardson asserted that the practice he advocated was "precisely in the spirit of this injunction, and we very properly forbear to decide the question either way, and consequently neither invite nor prohibit."

Like Errett, Richardson noted that the Scotch Baptists "are especially rigid in regard to this matter." Yet, he could vouch for them as "generally faithful and pious brethren" and thus suggested that "great forbearance" should be extended to those congregations.

W. K. Pendleton

In his follow-up "Remarks" on the question, editor W. K. Pendleton expressed his doubt that "the subject is one likely to develop any very serious controversy among the brethren." He approved what he referred to as the "almost universal" custom in Stone-Campbell churches to deny any authority "to exclude from the Lord's supper any who, by their walk and conversation, and in their own hearts, approve themselves as the Lord's people." Pendleton called on his readers to remember that "we are laboring, not to introduce a totally new church, but to restore the things which are wanting in one already existing; not to overthrow what is good, buy to teach the way of the Lord more perfectly."

Pendleton concluded with a revealing flourish. In the following purple passage, there can be no doubt that the essential question was not "Who should partake?" The basic matter at stake was the question of who should be regarded as a believer?

If Peter had been left to his Jewish prejudices and exclusivism, he would doubtless have refused to admit Cornelius to baptism. It was the overwhelming evidence of his reception by God that compelled the apostle to say, 'Who shall forbid that he shall be baptized?' So ought it to be with us. Can we deny that God has recognized and is still recognizing the truly pious and full of faith and good works in the many divisions of professed Christians, as really and truly his people? Will any one take the absurd position that the noble list of illustrious men who have been the light and ornament of religion in the ages that are past, and whose piety and learning are still the admiration and glory of the Lord's people--that all these, because of an error, not on the significancy or divine authority of baptism, but what we must be allowed to call its mode,--that all these, because of such an error, must be pushed from our ranks as reprobate--torn from our Christian affections, as heretics--thrust from the communion of the body and blood of the Saviour, whom for a long life they so truly loved and devotedly served, and counted no more worthy of our Christian fellowship than so many heathens and publicans! The conclusion is too monstrous for any but the hide-bound zealot of a cold and lifeless formalism. I should feel that I had injured the Christianity which I profess and which I love, could I recall that even for a moment I had allowed by head so to interpret its pleading mercy, or my heart so to restrict its wide-embracing charity.

Such a vigorous defense of a generous restorationism clearly indicates that second-generation leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement had much more than the Lord's Supper to discuss. The essential nature of the restoration plea and the position of the movement in the larger world of Christendom was the real issue.

Notes

[1] The responses from Errett, Richardson, and Pendleton appeared under the title "Communion with the 'Sects'" in the The Millennial Harbinger dated December 1861, Vol. 32, 711-714. This material was reprinted in Benjamin Lyon Smith, The Millennial Harbinger Abridged, Vol. 2 (Cincinnati: Standard, 1902), 239 and following.

[2] Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker, Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Saint Louis: Bethany Press, 1975), 237.

[3] The approximate birth and death dates for Richard Hawley are taken from McAllister and Tucker, Journey in Faith, 240. For Hawley as the ACMS representative from Michigan, see The Millennial Harbinger Abridged, Vol. 2, 400.

[4] McAllister and Tucker, Journey in Faith, 240.

Religious Travelogue at its Best: American Evangelicalism in Recent Times

Balmer, Randall. Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America. 25th Anniversary Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

In the prologue to his classic study of conservative Protestantism in late twentieth-century America, Randall Balmer writes: "This is a book about popular evangelicalism, a kind of travelogue into the evangelical subculture in America, a subculture that encompasses fundamentalists, charismatics, and pentecostals" (4-5). With that, he launches into a series of chapters, each one taking him to a different place, each one offering him a different slice of his topic. A few highlights:

Chapter 1, "California Kickback," recounts a 1987 visit to Calvary Chapel, an evangelical mega-church in Santa Ana, California. Under the leadership of pastor Chuck Smith, the church took off in the 1970s when leaders began preaching to washouts from the hippie counterculture in Southern California. As Balmer describes it, the church seems to have taken on certain aspects of the counterculture. At least some long-time members of the congregation are "Jesus people" from the 70s. Yet, Calvary Chapel attracts a remarkably wide variety of folks, attesting to the fact that the church is something much more than a big group of "hippies for Christ."

The setting for Chapter 5, "Adirondack Fundamentalism," is thousands of miles from Southern California: Word of Life Fellowship on Schroon Lake in upstate New York. Balmer describes Word of Life's summer Bible camp for teens in the summer of 1987. He chronicles some of the awkward, anxious religious lives of kids growing up in a devout Protestant home. He also discusses the historic issue of transmitting a vibrant faith from one generation to the next.

Chapter 14, "Oregon Jeremiad," tells the story of Balmer's 1986 visit to the Oregon Extension of Trinity College. Trinity is located in the suburbs of Chicago, while the small Western extension school is in Lincoln, Oregon, at a former logging camp in the Cascade Mountains. The extension and small church there, as Balmer describes the community, is a refuge for smart but sort-of-odd people who wouldn't fit in very well in one of the power centers of American evangelicalism, and who wouldn't want to.

Chapter 15, "Prime Time" was written in 1998, ten years after Jimmy Swaggart's public fall from grace following the discovery of his voyeuristic involvement with more than one prostitute. Balmer visited the Family Life Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Swaggart's church. According to the author's description, Donnie Swaggart, the son of the evangelist, became contentious when Balmer told him he was there on assignment to write an article for Christianity Today magazine. By contrast, Jimmy was very gracious and likable. (After the worship service, Balmer accidentally met up with the Swaggarts at a nearby restaurant). Balmer describes what the church and college campus looked like then. Only about 45 students attended Swaggart's college. Not many people attended the church services, and the sprawling campus of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries was poorly maintained.

Those were, in my opinion, some of the more engaging chapters. But there are over a dozen more. In the "Afterword: Twenty-Five Years Later," written in 2014, Balmer revisits some of the places he'd gone to and people he had spoken with a quarter century before. It's an interesting version of "Where are they now?"

I suspect that Balmer's work has appealed to so many readers through the years because it smoothly and consistently brings together four qualities: vivid description, historical context, penetrating analysis, and the author's own personal reflections.

There was one thing that I, involved with Churches of Christ all of my life, wondered about. In recent years, some scholars have asked about the degree to which Christians with roots in the Stone-Campbell Movement might be described as evangelicals. Along that line it might be significant that in this wide-ranging book, in which the author frequently draws connections between history and his contemporary subjects, the following names and terms do not appear in the Index: Campbell, Churches of Christ, Restoration, and Stone. I don't believe that's a mistake. Restorationists, Campbellite Disciples, Stoneite Christians, whatever you want to call them, are in a real sense not evangelicals. It appears that perhaps this book provides indirect evidence to support that conclusion.

Restoration Roots, by Lynn McMillon

McMillon, Lynn A. Restoration Roots: The Scottish Origins of the American Restoration Movement. Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 1983.

Armchair historians of the American Restoration Movement immediately recognize the names Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell. In fact, the religious saga in which they play the two leading roles has more recently been named the Stone-Campbell Movement. Students of this story also know the names of other heroes, especially Thomas Campbell, Alexander's father and mentor, and Walter Scott, one of the movement's great evangelists in the early 1800s.

However, if you were to ask, "Who came before them?" most of their spiritual descendants would look all the way back to the sixteenth century and mention Martin Luther and John Calvin. A gap would separate the reformers of the sixteenth century from the restorers of the nineteenth century. Restoration Roots: The Scottish Origins of the American Restoration Movement was written to fill in part of that gap. It traces some of the lines that tie the Reformation in Scotland to the eventual movement that, under the leadership of Stone and Campbell, sought to restore primitive Christianity on American soil.

Like several other fine works of history, this little book is the revision of a doctoral dissertation. McMillon completed it at Baylor University in 1972 under the guidance of Professors Glenn O. Hilburn, John Davidson, and Robert Reid. The original title was Quest for the Apostolic Church: A Study of the Scottish Origins of American Restorationism. In the early 1980s, the author, a long-time educator and leader among the Churches of Christ, made a few minor changes and republished the book as Restoration Roots.

The "Introduction" in the current edition was written by Earl West. Well known among the Churches of Christ for his multi-volume history of the American Restoration Movement called The Search for the Ancient Order, West offers some penetrating insights about McMillon's topic.

Chapter I sets the stage by reviewing the history of the Reformation in Scotland. Beginning with the influence of Oxford scholar John Wyclif, an Englishman who flourished in the late 1300s, McMillon identifies a strong Scottish attraction to the doctrine of sola scriptura (scripture only), a teaching that was later advanced by men like Patrick Hamilton, George Wishart, above all John Knox, and Andrew Melville.

Chapter II, one of the more interesting and significant parts of the book, shows how the Anabaptist branch of the Reformation, though sometimes overlooked or minimized, actually made a vital contribution to what would finally emerge as restorationism. For unlike those who sought merely to reform the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century, Anabaptists used the language of the restitution of the true church, an idea that compares much more closely with the later concept called restoration. Too, the Anabaptist tradition was consistent with English and Scottish Congregationalism in its demand for the autonomy of individual churches, also a hallmark of future restorationism.

Chapter III tells the story of John Glas (1695-1773), who began as a minister of the Church of Scotland. In the 1720s, young Glas argued against the arrangement of the national church of which he was a part. Reminding his hearers that Jesus had said His kingdom was not of this earth, Glas advanced the idea of the separation of church from state. He rejected both presbyterian and episcopal forms of church government insisting on the autonomy of every congregation. After he was deposed by the Church of Scotland, Glas served as an independent church leader and encouraged the practice of congregationalism for the rest of his life. Glas espoused the singular authority of the Bible, the restitution of primitive Christianity, the leadership of a plurality of elders in each congregation, and weekly observance of the Lord's Supper not as a sacrament but as a memorial.

Chapter IV describes the early life and ministry of Robert Sandeman (1718-1771), who became John Glas's son-in-law and his most illustrious protege. In fact, it was the fiery Sandeman who extended the "Glasite" movement from its native Scotland into England and Wales. He did this largely through the publication of Letters on Theron and Aspasio. Sandeman's book was a direct response to an earlier one by minister James Hervey called Theron and Aspasio. Hervey's book breathed the warm, revivalisitic Calvinism which was popular in that day. Sandeman held up an alternate view of salvation, one that began with gospel facts in the mind rather than strange stirrings of the Spirit in the heart. His teaching made sense to many people, and established Sandeman as an important religious thinker of the time. As a result, many people in Great Britain became interested in Christianity as it was taught and practiced among the Glasite churches.

Chapter V continues the story of Robert Sandeman who came to America in 1764 preaching and planting churches in the Northeast. The most prominent of these congregations was at Danbury, Connecticut, where Sandeman died in 1771. His results in America were mixed. He was opposed by several prominent ministers. Also, many people who agreed with him on the basic question of salvation did not go along with the holy kiss, footwashing, and the strict discipline, etc., practiced in the Sandemanian churches. Above all, because of their non-participation in politics, the fledgling congregations appeared to be siding with the Tories and were consequently ostracized and persecuted at the dawn of the American Revolution.

Chapter VI advances to the next generation and the work of Robert and James Haldane. As the author explains, though they were also Scotch independents who learned much from their predecessors, compared to Glas and Sandeman, the Haldane brothers were a different sort of restorationist. They placed much more emphasis on openness, evangelism, Christian unity, and the training of preachers. McMillon writes: "The Haldanes were theological descendants of Glas and Sandeman, but the brothers were more broad-minded in their dealings with persons of differing beliefs. They also exhibited a more dynamic evangelistic zeal than did Glas and Sandeman. While the Haldanes might be characterized as aggressive evangelists, Glas and Sandeman were teachers who tended their flocks" (76). Something else at this point in time is different. By now, Alexander Campbell has been born in Northern Ireland (in 1788) and eventually has direct contact with the Haldanes and their associates like Greville Ewing.

Chapter VII, the last section, takes up "Alexander Campbell and the Restoration Roots." Although he sometimes pointed out the differences between himself and his predecessors, Campbell shared much the same outlook as did the Anabaptists, and Glas, Sandeman and the Haldanes. It seems that two ideas that all of them espoused were a commitment to Bible authority and some concept of the restitution or restoration of primitive Christianity. McMillon ends by telling the story of Campbell's visit to Great Britain in 1847, and his meetings with those who had influenced him, and who he had more recently taught through his journals and books.

So what did I think of this book? One of the first things I noticed is that McMillon writes very much like his former teacher, Earl West, mentioned earlier. He focuses on facts and provides simple description. The subject is religious history. Where he absolutely must, the author takes up political and philosophical contours of the story.

I enjoyed reading this book and learned a lot from it. Because I'm interested in the subject, I would have liked it even more if it had been longer. And what else might have been included? I realize that the decisions of an author never end, and that writers have to make choices about what to include and how far to go with a certain sub-topic. That said, I would have liked more by way of political, social, and religious backgrounds and sidebars, and fuller coverage at certain points. For example, the book barely mentions that a significant part of the growth of Sandemanianism in England was due to the conversion of whole congregations that were originally associated with Methodist preacher Benjamin Ingham. Also, the substance of the theological debate between Hervey and Sandeman is fascinating and deserves, I think, more description than McMillon provides.

That aside, Restoration Roots is nonetheless an important book, one of the few that's been written on its subject. It has been and will remain a significant contribution to the study of the antecedents of the Stone-Campbell Movement and will be enjoyed by those who are interested in this part of the history of Christianity.

Rice Haggard's Influential Pamphlet

This is the last post I'll do about Rice Haggard, for now anyway. I hope that this series helps to show that his role in early American Restorationism is probably more significant than our surveys usually suggest. For one thing, although younger than and not as prominent as James O'Kelly, Haggard was significant in the break with Francis Asbury and the Methodists. Later, he provided leadership among the Republican Methodists who became the Christian Church. Too, though he has not been remembered as a leader among the Kentucky Christians of the Stone movement, the facts speak otherwise. In addition, as this post helps to show, Haggard provided some help to the New England movement, associated with Elias Smith and Abner Jones, which came to be known as the Christian Connexion.

A short, far-from-complete list of resources for further study (with links) can be found at the end of this post. I'd be glad to hear your reactions to any of this.
__________________

The call for a return to the Bible and undenominational Christianity spread during the early years of the newly-formed United States. An early-American "restoration plea" was heard not only in places like Virginia and Kentucky, but also in the New England states.

One prominent reformer in the Northeast was Connecticut-born Elias Smith. A preacher and publisher, Smith drank deeply of primitive restorationism. In 1803--when Alexander Campbell was about 14 years old and still in Ireland-- Smith was excommunicated by the Baptist Church of Woburn, Massachusetts. On that occasion he said:

If you wish to know what denomination I belong to, I tell you, . . . I am a Christian; as a preacher, [I am] a minister of Christ; calling no man father or master.

In 1816, he wrote:

The Holy Scriptures are the only sure authentic and infallible rule of faith and practice; the name Christian is the only proper one of the believer; in all essentials the scriptures are plain to be understood.

Smith has been remembered for his founding of the Herald of Gospel Liberty, often touted as the world's first religious newspaper. When Smith started the newspaper in 1808, his list of subscribers numbered only 274. But within just a few years that number had grown to 1,500. In the issue for Friday, August 18, 1809, Smith wrote:

We have received a small, but valuable work, from one of our Brethren in Virginia . . . which we think will be read with pleasure by many.

The article that followed was not complete. It was merely the first installment of a series. More sections appeared in the months that followed until the anonymous work was concluded in the issue dated February 2, 1810.

It wasn't until a century and a half rolled by that someone finally realized what Smith had published in the pages of the Herald. John W. Neth, Jr., then a budding church historian, identified who had written the series of articles. Years before, Neth had taken a church history class in which the professor noted that Rice Haggard's pamphlet on the sacred origin of the name Christian was no longer available. Neth turned to a classmate and bragged that he would someday discover the lost pamphlet. It turned out to be a prophecy.

Years later, as he worked his way through old issues of the Herald, Neth suddenly suspected that the series of articles was a reprint of the long-lost Rice Haggard pamphlet. Careful research in the early 1950s confirmed the identity of the articles, and Haggard's pamphlet was republished in 1954--along with an interesting preface--by the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville.

Haggard titled his work, An Address to the Different Religious Societies, on the Sacred Import of the Christian Name. Throughout, Haggard focused on the blight of religious division and importance of Christian unity. As he saw it, nothing was more harmful to the cause of Christ than the disunity of His followers:

To me it appears, that if the wisdom and subtlety of all the devils in hell had been engaged in ceaseless counsels from eternity, they could not have devised a more complete plan to advance their kingdom than to divide the members of Christ's body.

Haggard also believed that a vital step in restoring Christian unity was for all to wear the name Christian. But this was not merely a practical thing. It was primarily a matter of ascribing to our Lord the honor that only He deserves:

If our religion be the religion of Jesus Christ, both justice and propriety demand, that it should be called by his name. Otherwise, he will be the author of a good, and other will have the honor of it.

In another passage, Haggard spoke against the practice of wearing a man's name simply because one embraces what that man taught:

I believe some things which great and good men have believed and taught; but I believe them not on their authority, but solely on the authority of Jesus Christ. It would therefore be iniquity in me to rob him, in order to compliment them.

The tested reformer fully realized that Christian unity would never come merely as the result of all believers adopting the Christian name. Unity would come as the result of everyone standing together in truth:

Would to God, that those distinctions, which have so long abounded and troubled [the church], were vanished away, never to return! and that union, the church communion, were every where established upon the original simple principles of the gospel!

Confident that Christian unity would take hold and ultimately prevail, Haggard concluded on a note of hope: 

Brethren, we are expecting happier times than the church has ever yet seen; when she shall "look forth" as the morning, fair as the moon, "clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."

Haggard's pamphlet was first published in 1804 by Joseph Charless of Lexington, Kentucky. After it appeared in serial form in the Herald of Gospel Liberty, it was reprinted in pamphlet form in 1815 at Dayton, Ohio. It was, thus, one of the most widely-circulated religious tracts of the early 1800s, and no doubt made an impact for the cause of uniting believers under the name Christian.

One of the more remarkable things about the pamphlet is that it was lost for so very long. At the very beginning, Haggard reveals only this about himself:

Some may, perhaps, be anxious to know who the author of the following pages is, his name, and to what denomination he belongs. Let it suffice to say, that he considers himself connected with no party, nor wishes to be known by the name of any -- he feels himself united to that one body of which Christ is the head, and all his people fellow members.

I used to believe that those words were motivated by pure modesty on the part of Haggard. Since then, however, I have learned that his tract has at least two antecedents:

1. A booklet by Benjamin Grosvenor (1676-1758), An Essay on the Christian Name: It's Origin, Import, Obligation, and Preference to all Party-Denominations. London: John Clark and Richard Hett, 1728.

2. A sermon by Samuel Davies (1724-1761), later president of Princeton University, titled "The Sacred Import of the Christian Name."

It's clear that Haggard's ideas, and even their specific wording, were not his own. Any credit, I believe, belongs to Grosvenor. Upon reading Haggard's work, one realizes that he knew how to document his ideas. He even does it a few times. But for him to truly document his reliance on Grosvenor and/or Davies, he should have placed a footnote and Ibid. after many of his sentences.
Of course, that would have been quite a distraction in a pamphlet that Haggard believed was vital. If he was going to do so much copying, he'd have to do it anonymously. That's my theory for now, anyway.

Rice Haggard died in 1819 somewhere around Xenia, Ohio, and was buried in an unmarked grave. He was only 50 years old. Appropriately enough, at the time of his death he was doing what he believed was most important, taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the people of what was then the western frontier of the United States.
________________
For Further Study: In addition to the Haggard pamphlet, I have quoted from various parts of The Centennial of Religious Journalism, edited by J. Pressley Barrett, Dayton, OH: Christian Publishing Association, 1908. This is a fascinating source for people who enjoy reading about Restoration History. It includes, for example, a short biography of Elias Smith, from which I've quoted here, on pp. 314-16. Remembrances of Haggard, stemming from various sources, can be found on pp. 15-21 and 269-83.

Also, P. J. Kernodle's book Lives of Christian Ministers (1909) contains a short biography of Rice Haggard.

The obituary notice for Nancy Haggard, the widow of Rice, was submitted by Isaac T. Reneau and can be found in the Millennial Harbinger, vol. 6, no. 2 (February 1863), pp. 94-95.

The only book-length treatment is Rice Haggard: The American Frontier Evangelist Who Revived the Name Christian, by historian extraordinaire, the late Colby D. Hall.

I've mentioned already the article by R. L. Roberts, "Rice Haggard (1769-1819) 'A Name Rever'd'," in Discipliana 54 (Fall 1994), pp. 67-81. Because Roberts used the oldest and best authorities available, his article is by far the best secondary biographical source.

Rice Haggard, Barton W. Stone, and the Christians of Kentucky

From the mid-1790s until the beginning of the 1800s, Rice Haggard was a preacher and leader among the former Republican Methodists. In August of 1794, the group adopted by name "the Christian Church."

It was likely in 1803 that Haggard made a trip westward from Virginia to Kentucky. One of his reasons for going there was to visit his brother David who, like Rice, had also served as a Methodist preacher. As early as 1791, David Haggard had been assigned to ride the circuit of Lexington, Kentucky. A few years later, he decided to settle in the newly-formed state.

Another of Rice Haggard's reasons for going to Kentucky was to arrange for the purchase of land, which he must have heard about from his brother. According to the records of Cumberland County, in 1798 David Haggard was granted 200 acres of land on the Little Renox Creek. The next year he was granted an additional 300 acres in the same vicinity. [1]

During his trip to see David, Rice Haggard met Barton W. Stone, a leader of the newly-formed Springfield Presbytery. The relationship between these two men, as well as the relationship between the former Republican Methodists in Virginia and the Christians in Kentucky, is not well known for the most part.

However, we do have the record of Joseph Thomas, known by his distinctive outfit and called by many in his day "the White Pilgrim." Thomas, a Kentucky preacher of the early 1800s, gives us some important first-hand information. Recounting the actions of Stone and the Springfield Presbytery in the early months of 1804, Thomas writes:

About this time R. Haggard, a minister of the christian church in Virginia, heard of them. At that time he found them a wise, candid people, enquiring after the plain simple truth as it was laid down in the scriptures. And at a great meeting held by them at Bethel he proposed to them publicly the name by which they should distinguish themselves as the followers of Christ. -- "And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch."-- "And that the scriptures were all sufficient to govern the church of Christ, and that any other written rules or laws were spurious and only calculated to separate and keep apart the lambs of Christ." They then saw that the day of the redeemed had come, and that the day star, with all the shining beams of truth had shined into their hearts. With great joy and thankfulness they received this name, as being sent down from heaven for them to be called by. I will observe that in the time of the interview of R. Haggard with these people, I am induced to think that he received a greater and more perfect understanding of some of the doctrine of the gospel than he ever before received. . . .

Not long after this, at a memorable meeting, held at Cane Ridge in 1804, the Springfield Presbytery dissolved their body by a mutual and unanimous consent. [2]

Here, Thomas confirms for us two important facts about the Springfield Presbytery. First, Rice Haggard's counsel at the meeting at Bethel in April 1804 led to their adoption of the name Christian. Second, Haggard's influence among the Presbytery contributed to its eventual demise. It was no mere coincidence that the Bethel meeting took place in April and that the breakup came two months later on June 28th. In fact, the words of Stone himself relate that Haggard directly influenced him and his colleagues:

Under the name of the Springfield Presbytery we went forward preaching, and constituting churches; but we had not worn our name more than one year before we saw it savored of a party spirit. With the man-made creeds we threw it overboard, and took the name Christian--the name given to the disciples by divine appointment first at Antioch. We published a pamphlet on this name, written by Elder Rice Haggard, who had lately united with us. Having divested ourselves of all party creeds, and party names, and trusting alone in God, and the word of his grace, we became a byword and laughing stock to the sects around. Yet from this period I date the commencement of that reformation, which has progressed to this day. [3]

Notice how Stone acknowledges the leadership of Haggard in that "reformation" with which Stone was associated.

Finally, the place of Haggard as a leader among the Kentucky Christians--not only in his suggestion of the name Christian, but also in more-general teaching--is confirmed for us by the remarks of Robert L. Davidson, a historian of the Presbyterian Church, who sarcastically wrote:

Filled with the pleasing dream of an approaching universal kingdom which was to embrace the whole earth, they proposed to establish a grand communion, which should agree to united upon the simplest fundamental principles according to a plan drawn up by Rice Haggard, such as worshiping one God, acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Saviour, taking the Bible for the sole confession of faith and organizing on the New Testament model. To this union, all disciples of Christ, they gave the name "The Christian Church" and would recognize no sectarian appellation. Their views were communicated to the world in the promised "Observations of Church Government" and An Address to the Different Religious Societies on the Sacred Import of the Christian Name. [4]

That Davidson knew of what he spoke is verified by a comparison of his description of the "plan drawn up by Rice Haggard" to what Haggard actually published in his pamphlet in 1804.

Of course, no one doubts that the leading personality among the Kentucky Christians was Barton W. Stone. But what hasn't always been recognized is that, in 1804, when Stone and his brethren were searching for answers, the veteran reformer Rice Haggard offered biblical counsel and timely suggestions. Indeed, it is said by Davidson that it was the plan drawn up by Haggard which was approved and adopted by the Springfield Presbytery.

Considering that description, a person has to wonder how the Stone Movement might have been different had it not been for the timely influence of Rice Haggard.
___________________

[1] For more about this, see the outstanding article by R. L. Roberts, "Rice Haggard (1769-1819) 'A Name Rever'd'," Discipliana 54 (Fall 1994), pp. 67-81.

[2] Joseph Thomas, The Travels and Gospel Labors of Joseph Thomas (Winchester, VA: J. Foster, 1812), p. 26.

[3] Barton W. Stone, Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone (Cincinnati: J. A. and U. P. James, 1847), p. 50.

[4] Robert L. Davidson, History of the Presbyterian Church in the State of Kentucky (New York: R. Carter, 1847), p. 198.