In 1804, five preachers in the United States declared:

We do not desire, nor do we consider ourselves to be separated from the Presbyterian church, as Christians, whether ministers or people…it is not our design to form a party.

H. Eugene Johnson, Esq., The Christian Church Plea (1975), Standard Publishing, at 11 n. 11. Those preachers urged a return to the “primitive Christianity” of the first century as recorded in the New Testament, and the shedding of traditions, overlays, add-ons, and what at least one wag referred to as the “rubbish of the ages.” Their fundamental belief was that the Bible was the all-sufficient guide for faith and practice.

The initiation of the movement commencing in the early 1800s today called the Restoration Movement is generally attributed to Alexander Campbell, one of the five preachers mentioned above. Sometimes members of the Restoration Movement are called Campbellites. Because the Restoration Movement is just that, a movement and not a denomination, it is without a headquarters, a handbook of policies or procedures, and without a hierarchy such as a priesthood or other order of salaried clergy. Indeed, in most churches that have resulted from the principles of the movement, “ordination” of clergy starts with the first paycheck and ends with the last.

Members of the Restoration Movement believe a handful of essential principles that govern every aspect of their faith and worship. The application of this handful of principles can, of course, be as complex as anyone cares to make it. While there are several churches, schools and groups that claim to represent the movement, there are few that have real credibility. For example, the Disciples of Christ, a recognizable and recognized denomination, has all but abandoned some of the principles of the Restoration Movement, the first, of course, being that restoration does not require the formation of a denomination, party, group, congress, corporation, association, order of priests, or other official body.

The non-instrumental Churches of Christ have transformed the idea of restoration into a sort of legalism that is harshly, if not comically, exclusive and have founded an order, though they would not call it that, and a singular legalistic discipline, though they call it restoration.

But, both of those groups are two of the houses of the Restoration Movement. The third house of the Restoration Movement is the independent Christian Churches. They are often different from each other in the manner in which they articulate and order faith and practice. While it is not always true, there is generally very little difference between non-instrumental Churches of Christ and independent Christian Churches, except for the ban on musical instruments in worship practiced by the former. But that is enough to prevent most Churches of Christ from having anything to do with independent Christian Churches or even their members. Both would agree, generally, that the Disciples of Christ are “liberal” and have resulting differences that would make them irreconcilable.

The divisive nitpicking squabbles of the three houses of the Restoration Movement probably result more from protectionism — protecting the offering plate, protecting the salaried clergy and its influence, and protecting property — than anything “Biblical.” Take three knowledgeable, well-educated members, one each from the three, and put them together long enough to get to know each other, and they will not find their personal beliefs about faith and practice to be compellingly differentm if each of the three is truly a Restoration Movement Christian.

The problem the Restoration Movement faces, and the reason division exists between members of the movement, much less the rest of Christendom, is that each generation must for itself discover the futility of religion, the futility of tradition and the futility of man’s leadership.

William Robinson, British scholar, and others have…[recognized] that to admit to man’s fallibilities is not to question Divine Truth, but to admit the need of reformation in each ongoing generation.

H. Eugene Johnson, Esq., The Christian Church Plea, 1975, Standard Publishing, at 37.

While there are three main “brands” of Restoration Movement churches, 200 years later all three represent the “failed” side of the Restoration Movement. Contrary to their progenitors, the Restoration Movement founders did not plan to found denominations or identifiable parties, but rather to urge restoration to fundamental biblical principles as the sole measure of faith and practice. While independent Christian Churches differ from one another in minor ways, the non-instrumental Churches of Christ have splintered into at least 20 identifiable “sub-species,” and they are so firm in their resolute legalism that unity among the 20 seems impossible, even though the differences to outside observers usually seem ridiculous. Be that as it may, we are where we are.

There are a few Restoration Movement Christians in all three great houses of the movement who are comfortable in any church in which the Gospel is the fundamental thread, but for the most part, the heirs of the movement congregate rather than infiltrate. Indeed, those Restoration Movement Christians who are comfortable in any church are often criticized for failing to maintain isolation. Fear is the hallmark of the isolationists in any circumstance, whether it be nations, churches, or individuals. While ecumenism has always been terrified of evangelicals, it should be equally embarrassing that evangelicals are so terrified of each other.

One of the fundamental tenets of the Restoration Movement that should not be lost is that the Bible is the all-sufficient guide for faith and practice. If that principle will not permit one church to have fellowship with another, then it should at least allow one Christian to worship with another without recriminations. Those who claim to be adherents to the principles of the “primitive church” but who are too terrified to step outside of the shadow of the front door of their own church and fellowship or worship with other Christians are deluded. More importantly, regarding those who are so afraid of the community around their church building that the community is excluded from the church or its worship, in that church the primitive church is dead, and probably long dead.

* * * * * *
See No. 2: “The Restoration Movement Message: Jesus is the Christ.”