Seeking True Unity #4: Counselor Mike Greene Presents “How Did We Get Where We Are? A Brief History of Unity and Division …”

Preliminary Distant Voice on Unity - Barton W. Stone

“In those days there were but a few terms of communion among Christians. All were admitted to fellowship who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and obeyed him; and their obedience was considered the best evidence of their faith … If opinions of truth were to be made terms of fellowship, it is much questioned whether any two men on earth could so perfectly agree in all points, as ever to unite; there could be no union or fellowship on earth” (Barton W. Stone, “Objections to Christian Union Calmly Considered,” Christian Messenger 1 {December 1826}, 27)

Summary of the Prosecutions’ Case

We in the jury have heard from two highly trained experts in the law so we know what to expect with Counselor Mike. Mike has a completely different approach than either Steve or Phil. While Phil had appealed to “early leaders,” Mike devotes his presentation to presenting his version of the entire  historical record. He opens by acknowledging that the Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ all spring from the same seed in the early 19^th century. He asks an important question “How was unity achieved? And more importantly, what happened to that unity.” (p. 25). He briefly notes the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery and the Declaration and Address of Thomas Campbell. He notes that Campbell was brought before the synod on heresy charges (he does not tell us what that was).

The counselor tells us that the Reformers (Campbell’s group) and the “Christians” (Stone’s group) were united to the praise of God. Counselor Greene makes this interesting statement: “There was little difference except Campbell’s emphasis on baptism for remission of sins which teaching Stone accepted but which he did not emphasize as did Campbell. Whatever faults Stone might have seen in Campbell his love for his fellow worker would hide forever” (p. 30). We will return to this statement, but for the moment we can only give thanks to God for the witness to Stone’s ministry of reconciliation testified to by Greene. This was a living demonstration, our Counselor insists, that “unity based on the Word was possible” and not simply pious rhetoric (p. 30).

This union on the word of God was destroyed, we jury members hear, because many left the original grounds of that union (the word) by importing innovations. The first of these was the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 (our counselor informs us that Alexander Campbell was not present but was elected President anyway). Further innovation (i.e. departure from the pattern - Phil's shattered plate) happened when L. L. Pinkerton introduced the melodeon at the Midway Christian Church. Mike hints that Slavery and the Civil War may have “exacerbated” the situation (p. 33). The counselor tells us that in the end those who proclaim “the pure gospel of Christ” (i.e. the Churches of Christ) have outstripped the “missionary society laden Christian Churches” (p. 34).

The Thinking Jury Members Reflections on this Version of History

On several levels I have struggled with how to appropriately respond to Mike’s case. He has bit off a very large bite but he is constrained by space. The case is both admirable for its brevity in stating its interpretation of events in the 19^th century but it is also incredibly flawed on many grounds … is this because the prosecution spins the history or is this because of the extreme limits of the chapter? By “spin” I want to be clear that I do not imply that the prosecution would ever knowingly distort the facts, I do however realize that the Counselor and his team have a version of that great 19^th century story that is formed and shaped by the tradition they are apart of.

Firsts. Let me begin with the counselor’s last Matlock moment (the bad guys have been shown to be wrong all along because “we” are now “bigger” than them in spite of that accursed mission society). Here we loose some technical precision that at least one of the prosecuting lawyers demands. The counselor begins the chapter by acknowledging there are three branches to the shattered family of God connected with the Stone-Campbell Movement. When we end those distinctions seem to be lost. The Disciples of Christ have pursued a path of theological liberalism that in many ways is astonishing. They are nearly dead as a denomination. The Independent Christian Church however has in no way followed that theologically liberal path. In fact, theologically, many in the Christian (Independents) Churches are more conservative than in Churches of Christ and have always been so. They have close ties to fundamentalism and (with few exceptions) “we” have not. One more note here at the end. The Churches of Christ have not outstripped the Independents in growth, in fact the independents are exploding. They have over a hundred churches with 1000+ members … most of those have appeared in the last 15 to 20 years. Bob Russell’s church is the second or third largest church in America … and an Independent Christian minister, Gene Apple, has recently been hired by the Willow Creek Church to replace the retiring Bill Hybels.

Seconds. Unity & Diversity in the Stone-Campbell Movement. What I intend on doing in this section is present an alternative reading of the “how” unity was achieved in the Stone-Campbell Movement through this method I will critique the Counselor’s interpretation. Like Greene’s presentation, this is of necessity short.

What became the American Churches of Christ had their beginnings in an incredible ecumenical event sometimes called “the American Pentecost.” Cane Ridge was an amazing event. There were, according to Barton Stone, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptists preachers side by side. There were white and black ministers proclaiming the love of God. There were men and women exhorters involved too. Stone comments that despite this diversity of perspective there was unity in the message ...

 “The doctrine preached by all was simple, and nearly the same … All urged faith in the gospel, and obedience to it, as the way of life … The spirit of partyism, party distinctions, were apparently forgotten … The spirit of love, peace, and union, were revived. You might have seen the various sects engaged in the same spirit, praying, praising, and communing together, and the preachers in the lead. Happy days! joyful seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord” (Barton Stone, “History of the Christian Church, No. 1” Christian Messenger 1 {February 1827}, 77)

The DNA seeds for Stone’s celebration of the demise of division and unity around the simply evangelical message comes from many directions. The previous work of James O’Kelly and Rice Haggard (with whom Stone would unite in the Christian Connection). O’Kelly published the “Five Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church” which read:

1) The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church

2) The name Christian to the exclusion of all party and sectarian names

3) The Holy Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments our only creed, and sufficient rule of faith and practice

4) Christian character, or vital piety, the only test of church fellowship and membership

5) The right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, the privilege and duty of all.

Cane Ridge was seen as dangerous by the Presbyterians. Stone and several others were disciplined for what amounted to being to open in fellowship. An Apology renouncing the authority of that presbytery hit the shelves in January 1804. The Last Will and Testament which appeared later that same year reflects all this background. It states its wish to “die and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large” … Stone recognizes that larger Body because of Cane Ridge. The LW & T is a plea for freedom and unity at its core. Stone insists he has, like O’kelly, has the right to think for himself. Because of Cane Ridge he can plea “”We will, that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less” (Item #7). Stone never, not at Cane Ridge, not with the Christian Connection, not with Alexander Campbell, ever made unity based on doctrine the ground for fellowship. The ground of unity was the simple gospel of Jesus Christ. The test of fellowship was stated clearly by O’kelly in Principle #4

Thomas & Alexander Campbell also had a run in with what Counselor Phil called the “exclusiveness of the denominations” that “shamed the name of the Lord” (p. 17). Thomas came to the USA from Ireland. He was here only shortly before he found himself in hot water so to speak. Counselor Greene tells us he was brought up on charges of “heresy” (p. 27) but he fails to specify what that heresy was. Thomas was asked to preach and serve communion to the Anti-Burghers in Cannamaugh north of Pittsburgh. He brought along a young, but strict, preacher named William Wilson. Thomas did offer communion (i.e. fellowship) with the Anti-Burghers but he also invited all Presbyterians to attend. Wilson reported Campbell to the Synod and on Oct 27, 1807 he was charged with “heresy” … he was to “liberal.” He was rebuked and finally censured. At this point Thomas, like Stone, renounced the tyranny of the synod and wrote one of the great works of Christian history, The Declaration & Address. The D&A, like the LW&T must be seen against its setting. It is a defense of fellowship and liberty of conscience in the Christian faith. The voice of Thomas explodes against intolerance from the first:

“[W]e are persuaded that it is high time for us not only to think, but also to act, for ourselves”

This unchristian habit of sitting in judgment he passionately protests:

“[N]o man has a right to judge his brother, except in so far as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law. That every such judgment is an express violation of the law of Christ, a daring usurpation of his throne, and a gross intrusion upon the rights and liberties of his subjects”

What powerful language. It was “evil” and “accursed” divisions that cause many Christians to even miss the “Lord’s Supper, that great ordinance of unity and love” and turn it into, as did the synod, as a way of dividing the precious Body of Christ. Such behavior and attitudes perverted the Lord’s “Gospel of Peace.” Like Stone he called for unity in the “common cause of simple evangelical Christianity.” What about all those areas of disagreement? Thomas rejects the binding of inferences outright. He says “We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference – of private opinion.” He declares “An agreement in the expressly revealed will of God is the adequate and firm foundation of this unity.” Thomas know exactly where the root of most division comes.

“[T]he bitter root of almost all our divisions, namely, the imposing of our private opinions upon each other as articles of faith or duty … as if they were the express law of Christ.” 

Just as O’Kelly and Stone, Campbell makes faith in Christ and Christian character the “original” criterion for Christian unity,

“A manifest attachment to our Lord Jesus Christ in faith, holiness, and charity, was the original criterion of Christian character, the distinguishing badge of our holy profession, the foundation and cement of Christian unity.”

Thomas Campbell’s D & A is an incredible document. It is a disgrace that it is largely unknown and perhaps even rejected by most preachers and members today … but its message is loud and clear.

It is evident from the primary sources of the Stone-Campbell Movement that these men ever dreamed of seeking unity on the basis of doctrine or even the Bible but rather upon the message of Jesus Christ and profession of that faith in our lives.

Counselor Mike is correct, I think, that in many ways the Stone folk and Campbell folk were alike. They had a passion for unity. They both rejected creeds as a basis for fellowship. They both called for the Bible to be the book of rule and faith. They both pointed to the message of Jesus as the gospel. These are obvious formal similarities.

Yet at the same time, contrary to what the counselor suggests there was more than a “little difference” between these two groups. It is most interesting that Greene says that Stone found the “truth” on the “atonement, baptism, and salvation” (p.27). Alexander Campbell did not think Stone had the truth on these areas. Indeed one might say that there were certain formal similarities between Stone and Campbell but that there were deep and substantive theological/doctrinal differences. The short list includes:

1) What to call “ourselves”

2) Work of the Holy Spirit in conversion

3) Importance of baptism and using it as a test of fellowship

4) Frequency of the Lord’s Supper

5) Church government

6) Doctrine of atonement

7) Doctrine of Trinity

8) Numerous other matters

These differences between Stone and Campbell are nothing to sneeze at. But the two movements let the Holy Spirit work a miracle through them and united. Even after the union Stone and Campbell disagreed, mightily, over the proper name (i.e. Christian/Disciple), the nature of divine existence, the doctrine of atonement but they were united. Both Thomas and Alexander thought Stone to be completely wrong on the Trinity and Atonement but were willing to fellowship Stone anyway. Alexander had a “Christological” test, “I regard no man as a believer in Jesus as Messiah, who denies that he is a divine person, the only begotten of God; or who refuses to worship him” (“Mr. Broaddus,” MH 4 {Jan 1833}, 9). But Stone was worthy of fellowship because he did worship Jesus and would used biblical language rather than opinions of what the Bible said.

Counselor Mike asked a brilliant question! “How could unity be established” between Stone and Campbell. Did they demand doctrinal unity? They did not! The positions of Stone and Campbell in the D&A and other writings let us know exactly how and why they could unite. They united on the Gospel of Peace. I do not have to infer this rather it stated explicitly by those involved (note Thomas Campbell above). I will be quoting from John A. Williams, Life of Elder John Smith whom the counselor refers to on p. 31. Williams notes that

“Some Reformers still looked upon the Christians as Arians; and some Christians were adverse to the union, in the belief that the Reformers denied the influence of the Spirit, and attached undo importance to baptism … While all did not hold in the same sense that baptism was for the remission of sins, they all agreed it was a divine ordinance, which could not safely be set aside or neglected” (p. 369).

But on that glorious day when the Reformers and Christians united in their diversity “Raccoon” John Smith stood up and said,

“God has but one people on the earth … There are certain abstruse or speculative matters—such as the mode of Divine Existence, and the Ground and Nature of Atonement … “I have the more cheerfully resolved on this course, because the Gospel is a system of facts, commands, and promises, and no deduction or inference from them, however logical or true, forms any part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No heaven is promised to those who hold them, and no hell is threatened to those who deny them. They do not constitute, singly or together, any item of the ancient and apostolic gospel. While there is but one faith, there may be ten thousand opinions; and hence, if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one in faith and not in opinion.” (p. 371-372, my emphasis)

It was in light of this great speech that Barton W. Stone extended his hand and said “I have no objection to the ground laid down by him as the true scriptural basis of union among the people of God” (p. 373).

I seriously doubt that Barton Stone would be welcome in a large number of Churches of Christ today. And for that matter Alexander Campbell probably would not be either. Yet that glorious unity Counselor Mike celebrates and laments its loss was in fact a unity on the Gospel amidst tremendous doctrinal diversity!

The example of 1832 was previously set by both Stone and Campbell though in their ministries. These great Reformers demonstrated in deed, and not just words, that they were willing to “swim the channel” and “climb the steepest hill” for the sake of the right hand of a brother in the Lord!! They were willing to even give up an arm for the sake of a brother’s fellowship. Two examples:

In 1825, Alexander Campbell took time out of his “Restoration of the Ancient Order” Series to respond to the queries of Joseph Hostetler who was “Dunkard” or German Baptist. Hostetler was a leader of a group of congregations in the Midwest. They practiced these items:

1) they practiced trine immersion (face forward into the water)
2) they practiced the Lord's Supper in the context of a love feast
3) they washed feet as a required ordinance
4) they took the Lord's Supper only once or twice a year (and only at night else it would not be the "supper")
5) they practiced the holy kiss (and other matters)

Hostetler praises Campbell but thinks he is inconsistent on these matters. Campbell writes:

“DEAR BROTHER [sic] – For such I recognize you, notwithstanding the varieties of opinion which you express on some topics, on which we might never agree. But if we should not, as not unity of opinion, but unity of faith, is the only true bond of Christian union, I will esteem and love you, as I do every man, of whatever name, who believes sincerely that Jesus is the Messiah, and hopes in his salvation …” (Campbell, “Restoration of the Ancient Order, No. XI, Christian Baptist, Burnett edition, p. 223)

The Dunkards united with the “us” in 1827 a mere two years later. They did not give up their distinct beliefs any more than Stone and Campbell did when they formally united in 1831. You can read more of this “forgotten” union here at the Stoned-Campbell Disciple blog (i.e.Union of 1827).

Another example is that of Alyette Raines. Thomas Campbell met Raines on the Western Reserve while preaching in 1828. Raines had previously heard Walter Scott too. Raines was a “restorationist” (the old word for “universalist”). He believed, and preached, that all people would eventually be “restored” to God. He encountered the preaching of Scott and Thomas and accepted their formulation but retained his universalist views. Raines was a controversial “convert” to the Movement. At the next meeting the Brethren wanted proof that Raines had rejected his opinions before they would accept him. But he had not given them up. Thomas Campbell stood at the meeting and read from Romans 14. He then made this statement 

“Brother Raines and I have been together for the past several months, and we have mutually unbosomed ourselves to each other. I am a Calvinist, and he is a Restorationist, and although I am a Calvinist, I would put my right arm into the fire and have it burnt off before I raise a hand against him.” 

From this we learn that not only was Raines a universalist but that TC was a Calvinist! It is the attitude that is demonstrated by Stone and the Campbells that made the union of 1831 possible. It was not because it was a perfect agreement on doctrine. It was the unity of God’s People based on the simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

Alexander Campbell claimed to follow the apostolic example of Paul in his fellowship with those he believed to be in doctrinal error.  He writes clearly and boldly
 
"I frankly and boldly declare to them, as Paul did to the Corinthians, the things in which I praise them, and the things in which I praise them not. And I know of no way, of no course, that any christian can pursue consistently with the whole new testament, consistently with his serving God and his own generation, but this one. Therefore I advocate it and practice it. 

I have tried the pharisaic plan, and the monastic. I was once so straight, that like the Indian's tree, I leaned a little the other way. And however much I may be slandered now as seeking 'popularity' or a popular course, I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth and not popularity, was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist that I would neither pray nor sing songs of praises with any one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth." ("To an Independent Baptist," Christian Baptist, May 1826, p.238, Burnett Edition).

This is the spirit that enabled Unity between Campbell and Stone. This is the spirit that enabled unity to be the heritage of the Churches of Christ.  This is not the spirit that our Counselor suggests to the witness on the stand. 

Thirds. So what happened to that incredible unity of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Counselor Mike says that “innovations” that is departures from the pattern was the reason for division. That is hard to accept in face of the story of the movement thus so far. I believe that the Movement began to undergo a profound change in the late 1830s and 1840s that bore unholy fruit.

What was that change? It was the rise of the very thing that Stone and Campbell reacted against … exclusive sectarianism. Both Stone and Campbell demonstrate an awareness of this tendency. Campbell penned an article called simply the “Crises” in 1835, at nearly the same time Stone simply published some “Remarks” in his Christian Messenger. AC’s piece is lengthy. He cites laments the growth of cancer among the “churches” associated with him and Stone. There is a growing delight in fighting and a corresponding decline in love. There is a growth of a “dogmatical, unfeeling, and snarling temper” that is eating at the heart of a growing number (The Crises, MH 6 {December 1835}, 595-600).

Stone for his part confesses that a group of “anti-sectarian sectarians” have infiltrated “us.” These anti-sectarian sectarians cause Stone to “blush for my fellows who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship.” The folks are doing more “mischief” than all the “skeptics in the world. In fact they make skeptics” (Stone, “Remarks,” Christian Messenger {August 1835}, 180)

What might some of the extreme sectarian attitudes be that Campbell and Stone publicly lament over. First, is the rise of that narrow exclusivism that Phil reminded the jury those “early leaders” so justly protested. Second was the rise of extreme views regarding fellow followers of Christ. Third was the rise of a publication that had far more impact than it deserved.

John Thomas introduced the “rebaptism” heresy to the Stone-Campbell Movement in 1835. With this view, totally alien to the principles of the restoration movement, suddenly everyone (including some folks in the restoration churches themselves) were suddenly not Christians at all because they were not baptized “correctly” or “exactly.” 

The rise of the “Word-Only” view of the indwelling Holy Spirit began to infiltrate our ranks. Some preachers began to promote a view that non-Christians (those not baptized “correctly”) could not even pray! In 1837 Arthur Crihfield began that infamous journal called The Heretic Detector. He states in his Preface that he was set to expose real heretics through the “sword of the Spirit” and “make an impression not easily obliterated or forgotten” (“New Arrangement—Prospectus, &c.” Heretic Detector 1 {July 1837}, 169-70). This journal promoted radical extremism. Walter Scott explicitly condemned writings in the HD. When Crihfield promoted his doctrine on “alien prayer” he even concludes that it is wrong for a Christian to pray for the these aliens is sinful. Scott said he was ignorant in the extreme and insisted he explain Jesus’ prayer for the “aliens” from the cross (Scott, “To the Heretic Detector,” The Evangelist 6 {August 1838}, 186).

Other strange noises proceeded from The Heretic Detector for the first time. A highly sectarian view of the church emerged from the HD. Alexander Campbell had a concern for a united and even pure church. His famous series “A Restoration of the Ancient Order” however was not conceived as bringing back a “church” that had ceased to exist but rather an attempt on getting to a point that all could agree. But when Spencer Clack charged that Campbell was simply forging a new creed that without assent to there could be no unity, the Reformer demurred clearly and quickly. He declared “I have never made them (i.e. his understanding of the Ancient Order), hinted that they should be, or used them as a test of christian character or terms of communion” (“Reply to Spencer Clack,” CB, Burnett Edition, p. 370).

Such a generous attitude was lost on Crihfield. For the first time, that I am aware of, it was claimed that we were the “one true church.” Thus at the end of the 1830s there was a shift in understanding ourselves as a movement within the Body to being the totality of the Body! John Howard, Crihfield’s cohort, supplied for the first time a list of the “identifying marks of the true Church of Christ.” He listed six marks: called “Church of Christ” or “Christian Church,” no creed but the Bible, admits only those who have faith, repented, confessed and been immersed; organized as independent congregations; elders and deacons and deaconesses!!; worships by preaching, praying and breaking bread. Thus the Heretic Detector really embraced a position similar to the Prosecution … restoration is not a plea for unity but a plea for evangelism! Howard and Crihfield understood clearly they had “unchristianized” everyone but their own group.

Thus I maintain that by the end of the 1830s a sectarian spirit had invaded the disciples in the Stone-Campbell Movement. It was this sectarian spirit that ultimately lead to our demise as a unity movement.

Diversity was inherent in the movement from the beginning. Having diversity, among SOME, by the late 1830s and 40s was seen as a dangerous thing. It is interesting that the Missionary Society never divided the SCM prior to the Civil War. Some disagreed with it but it was not a term of fellowship. Slavery however by the mid-1850s was a highly volatile subject. For the sake of brevity, I maintain that the Civil War (as much as any “doctrinal” issue) divided the Movement. Here are a few juicy quotes:

“Should we ever meet them {northern disciples} in the flesh, can we fraternize with them as brethren? How can the servants of the Lord of this section {i.e. the South} ever strike hands with the men who now seek their life’s blood?” (Tolbert Fanning, “Ministers of Peace in the World’s Conflicts,” Gospel Advocate 7 {Nov 1861}, 348)

Most of the disciples, Southern and Northern, believed strongly in the “right” of their section. This was true of those who were pacifists and non-pacifists (Errett, Fanning, Franklin, etc).

 

At the conclusion of the War Fanning called for a general convention (interestingly enough!) of southern disciples! Fanning made it bitterly clear that northern disciples were not invited nor welcome and he explained that he doubted “the propriety of a hasty reconstruction” with northerners (Tolbert Fanning, “A General Consultation Meeting Suggested,” Gospel Advocate {April 17, 1866}, 243-244, his emphasis). After the Civil War, Fanning never again would say that “we” are one people.

 

I know it is not kosher to admit that something as unholy as a war could destroy a sense of brotherhood .. . and this is really unpopular among those who claim that only the Bible shapes and motivates their theology. But the Civil War shattered us as a people … and interestingly enough that group that gave Crihfield a hearing was in the upper South! (I have attached a map that graphically demonstrates WHERE the CofCs are located and the Disciples and it is amazing the correlation between where “we” are and where the Disciples are even to this day. Conservative historian Bill J. Humble wrote a magisterial article on the “Influence of the Civil War” in Restoration Quarterly back on the 100^th anniversary of that bloody conflict (1965). He concluded:

“The Civil War had so shattered the sense of brotherhood between northern and southern Christians that they could never again be called “one people” in any meaningful sense.”

Humble does not say the War did this alone but that sectional bitterness did in fact shatter our oneness. Other issues hindered by that legalism brought in by the Heretic Detector produced an atmosphere where tolerance was almost unheard of. The Heretic Detector was reincarnated in the Firm Foundation of Austin McGary. David Lipscomb and his Nashville Bible School certainly took part in the feelings of bitterness about reconstruction but also greatly resisted the narrowness of that other point of view. By the end of the 19^th century another fly was added to the ointment … theological liberalism in the 1890s. The works of George Longman, R. C. and R. L. Cave, Edward S. Ames and a host of others went far beyond missions and instrumental music to suggesting that Jesus was never raised from the dead. That was all Lipscomb could swallow.

Final Words. The movement begun by Stone and Campbell did not find its success in pleas for doctrinal conformity. Rather Stone and Campbell understood the concept of grace-based unity and fellowship. Without that unity with Hostetler, Raines or Stone and Campbell would never have happened. They all loved the Bible. They demanded loyalty to the Bible. But they did not demand loyalty to their understanding of the Bible. This is stated explicitly and demonstrated in reality. They believed that 1 John 1.7 was true and that it covered sin—all sin. Including “missing the mark” doctrinally.  

Alexander Campbell roots his actions and attitudes explicitly on the example of the Apostle Paul. He states that if Paul could fellowship the Corinthians then surely he could Stone and others like him.

One of Campbell’s associates, Charles Louis Loos suggested that many in our movement had lost their way and became what he called “doctrine-defenders.” A “common tendency is to glory in doctrines” he said. In fact this is the most common kind of religious error. But we “truly call it idolatry and apostasy; for men’s hearts, by it, stray away from Him as the only true object of our devotion. It makes the heart vain, intolerant, and impious. How often doe we see men rudely, and almost impiously, carry on a carnal warfare among men, not out of love for Christ and humanity, not glorying and rejoicing, like Paul, in a crucified Redeemer, but in a doctrine, having nothing but this doctrine and its triumps in their eyes … With them the favorite doctrine, and not Christ, is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.” 

Finally Loos bursts

“”Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ. Doctrines do not cleanse us from our sins; it is the efficacious blood of Christ. We are not converted to doctrines but to God. We do not believe in doctrines, but in Christ. We are not baptized into them, trust in them, glory in them, but in Christ Jesus the Lord.” (Loos, “Glorying in the Cross Only” in Biographies and Sermons of Pioneer Preachers, ed. W.T. Moore and reprinted by B.C. Goodpasture, pp. 461, 462, his emphasis).

It may be the case that the prosecution wants nothing to do with the principles of the reformation as confessed by Stone, Campbell, Loos and others. They held dearly to the Bible. They wrote about their understanding and called folks to “see if it was so.” We should do the same. But at the same time they had a generous and loving … Spirit disposition … that allowed them to confess unity in Christ while disagreeing on a host of “doctrines.” Because it was not then and it is not now any doctrine that saves either the prosecution or the jury. Grace flowing from God to us unites us both to him and to each other. Sectarian attitudes however claim that we are in fact the one true church.

My apologies to Mike for the length of this response but it actually the shortened version. I wanted to deal with the Civil War and liberalism in more detail … but another day. For now I close with the anthem written by Barton Stone and published in The Christian-Hymn Book of 1829

"Come, My Christian Friends"

"Come, my Christian friends and brethren, Bound for Canaan's happy land, Come, unite and walk together, Christ our leader gives command. Lay aside your party spirit, Wound your Christian Friends no more, All the name of Christ inherit, Zion's peace again restore.

See Seeking True Unity #1 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #2 HERE 
See Seeking True Unity #3 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #5 HERE

Shalom,

Bobby Valentine