Restoration Press

 

The Church of Christ and the

International Churches of Christ

 

Despite two decades of separation Between the International churches of Christ and the “mainline” church of Christ, there still exists a very close relationship with strong similarities in spirit and practice. The relationship between the two groups has been marked by a combination of strong similarities and opposites.  The International churches of Christ (ICOC) display that they are both the direct descendents of the Church of Christ (COC)  and a strong reaction to the main body of  COC. Because of the similarities and differences they have been able to develop common and opposite strengths. 

 

Part 1: Descendants of a heritage

Part 2: A History of repentance, reformation and reaction

Part 3: A common and uncommon future

 

Part 1. Descendants of a heritage.

The restoration movement contains two powerful dynamics set in action by the early founders at the turn of the 19^th century that continue to this day. These dynamics are the pursuit of New Testament Christianity and the belief that this pursuit would unite all believers under one banner. That one banner would be recognized by a simple biblical name such as the “Church of Christ” or “Christian church” with all it’s members living as “disciples” or “simply Christians”.  This movement began as a merger of distinct smaller movements led by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone and John Mulkey. As these movements grew in size and impact they became aware of each other’s presence and similarities, which lead them to the now famous merger in 1832. What they held in common was the following.

1.                          A deep commitment to the authority of the Bible. They believed in the then radical notion that the Bible was the ultimate authority and expression of God’s will. This belief removed the final authority from man-made organizations such as counsels or synods and put it in the hands of laymen reading the scriptures. The scriptures were viewed and accepted as the standard by which all men must live. This eventually led to the rejection of man made creeds and any authoritative organization beyond the local church as well.

2.                          Believer’s baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This was in its time a radically new idea that challenged the accepted doctrines of infant baptism of the day. This ultimately led to the complete separation from Baptist organizations that rejected the New Testament teaching of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  Baptism has been a lightning rod for debate inspiring a near combative stance in many churches of Christ with regard to other denominations.

3.                          The conviction that all believers in Jesus should gather as one body and that denominations are the fruit of sinful divisions. This firm belief unfortunately led to a popular idea among some churches of Christ that they alone might be the one true church. Some even went as far as equating the Kingdom of God to the church.

4.                          The firm belief that all the believers should gather on the first day of every week and worship God with Christ as the center and celebrate the Lords supper together.

These are principle characteristics that one can trace from the most recent analysis of the churches of Christ to early 19^th century descriptions. In other words these are the pillar characteristics of the restoration movement that remain since it’s beginning. Since the early days there has been much debate and a continual ebb and flow over these points,  but the core remains. Several major divisions have occurred over sub-points and new issues, but by in large the restoration movement and specifically the churches of Christ still hold to these values.

At a mere glance it is quite easily identifiable for anyone from the international churches of Christ to see a direct connection to the restoration heritage. Perhaps the most obvious connection to our common heritage is revealed in the Bible study series of the ICOC, commonly called the “First principles”. Before anyone was allowed to become a member of the church a series of Bible studies were required to insure a clear understanding and commitment to these very same principles.

The first study was called the “Word” study. The main point of this study was to insure that the future member understood and accepted the Bible as the ultimate authority and that he or she accepted the scriptures as a personal standard for their life. The second Bible study, although called by different names in different congregations, was a study of the life and death of Jesus Christ. The person studying was to understand the importance of Jesus dying on the cross, which would be reinforced by weekly communion messages conducted at Sunday, services forever more.

Another Bible study required, was a thorough study of Baptism and false doctrines about salvation. Here the person was taught a proper understanding of adult Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and tested by having to answer the challenges of false doctrines. Those studying would be presented with the major false doctrines and were expected to be able to refute them with scripture. The ICOC did not hold public debates but rather everyone was expected to be able to privately debate the religious and defend their doctrine.

Another of the first principle studies focused on the Kingdom of God. Here both commitment and role were established. The church was taught to be the modern earthly manifestation of the Kingdom of God. First the importance of the Kingdom was established. All services as well as Sunday service were seen as vitally important. Sunday was the highest and most important. Many were taught either here, or in another bible study entitled “the Church” that because there is only one church, this means that there is only one group that can be saved. In these studies many of the exact same strengths and mistakes were repeated as in earlier parts of the restoration movement.

The connections are obvious. There is a direct line of heritage in these principle doctrines.  It is clear that neither Chuck Lucas the principle founder of the crossroads movement nor Kip McKean the principle founder of the Boston movement could say that these principles began with them. Lucas would certainly not take that kind of credit. The ICOC and many of its leaders did make that claim. As one person noted Alzheimer’s disease is horrible because it makes one start over all too often losing valuable lessons and knowledge as well as beneficial relationships with the past. To not recognize ones heritage does the same.

 

Part 2:

A History of repentance, reformation and reaction

 

The founders of the restoration movement all came from strong religious heritages themselves. All of the major figures were deep in the training and leadership of long established religious traditions. They were educated men who were preachers themselves. Calvinism was the prominent theology and doctrine shaping popular Christianity causing many to feel trapped in predestination. Fed up with the old style European religious structure of their denominations, the founders of the restoration movement were men who challenged the system. Their challenges were in the spirit of repentance and reformation. They were themselves inspired by the great changes of the earlier reformation. Theirs was a firm belief that life and doctrine should be returned to the ancient order of things. For them this was the “current reformation”.

 

In 1792 James O’kelley working in Virginia and North Carolina, left the Methodist Episcopal Church forming the Republican Methodists, which then became “Christian” and committed to using the bible as a “Rule of Faith and practice”. In 1800 the first years of Elias Smith in Vermont and Abner Jones in New Hampshire also took similar views, calling themselves “Christian” only.

 

Barton Stone was first a preacher in the Presbyterian Church. Stone made his break in 1804 with the now famous Last will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery.   His rallying cry would become “no creed but the Bible”. He adopted the name “Christian” as the proper name for Christians. In 1807 he rejected infant sprinkling baptism and restored adult baptism.

 

Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell severed their ties with the Presbyterian Church in 1809 forming their own movement. In The declaration and Address they challenge the denominationalism as evil and called everyone to be unified under New Testament Christianity for worship, doctrine and practice. They took on the name “Disciples” referring to the church as simply the Church of Christ. Also in that same year John Mulkey broke away from the Mill Creek Baptist association taking more than half the preachers with him. They adopted the name “Christian” and spread rapidly across Kentucky, Tennessee and northern Alabama. By 1811 the Mulkey movement joined forces with the Stone movement. The two principle groups, Stone-Mulkey and Campbell’s finally were formally united in 1832. All of these actions were the fruit of the restoration principle. To restore Christianity according to the example set for us in the New Testament, including the unity of all Christians.

 

There is no doubt that this was a period of radical restoration. The reforms inspired people to preach and teach like few before or after. Reformation leads to repentance as evident in the thousands who were baptized in this period of time. As early as 1832 when the merger occurred there was a reported 25,000 known members in these restoration branches. By 1900 there were over one million reported members of restoration churches.  Preachers like Raccoon John Smith, James Hughes, Thomas Macintyre, John Seacrest, to name a few, rode horseback from meeting to meeting baptizing hundreds. The reforms had a tremendous impact on the frontier where people lived far from the traditional high church of the east. The west was filled with non-traditional rugged individuals with hearts wide open.  The simple message of faith repentance and baptism found fertile ground where Calvinism had left people frustrated and helpless to change their situation.

Along with the reforms and repentance there was also reaction to the past. Much of Campbell’s early writing harshly condemned the denominations and leaders of the day. Despite Stones involvement in revivals such as the Cane ridge revival, Campbell’s denunciation of all tent revivals carried the greater impact. Campbell was a man of his times also. He came out of Scottish rationalism that led to a mistrust of any emotional spirituality. This reaction led to a weakness in many churches of Christ to this day. Most Churches of Christ worship in a strict, orderly, rational and controlled way. There is very little room for innovation, emotion or even the Holy Spirit.  The mistrust of extra congregational authority or organization has led to the development of “autonomy” as a core belief causing it to be difficult to organize cooperation among churches of Christ.

Autonomy is a strong reaction to the control of traditional church organization out of which all the founders came. Despite the original calls for unity expressed in early restoration writing, the combative stances taken toward denominations and later diversity has left a legacy of intolerance. As every member was given the right to judge for himself so it also created a multitude of judgmental critics. This too was a reaction against High-church decrees whereby a church leader dictated the beliefs of all members regardless of how the scriptures were understood. In the same way that a persons heritage and history can help them improve and advance so can it also cause them to be warped or skewed in their vision for the future. Reactions usually miss the mark set by biblical restoration.

 

In the international Churches of Christ many of the same reactions were adopted. The rational and logical approach to scripture instead of emotional worship, the combative stance to other churches as well as other reactions. The rejection of traditional denominational church and the strong emphasis on restoration principles noted earlier. Some reactions however, were not adopted mainly due to reactions against the mainline churches of Christ themselves. We have in common that most of the early founders of the ICOC movement came out of the traditional churches of Christ. Chuck Lucas, Sam Laing the founders of the Crossroads movement. Kip McKean, Douglas Arthur, Steve Johnson, Tom Brown and many more early ICOC leaders came from the Churches of Christ as well. Where the two movements part, is in regard to the real or perceived shortcomings of the CoC in restoring New Testament Christianity. During the 1970’s according to many, the churches of Christ were suffering from a lack of zeal and little or no growth. The ICOC did not react to “High Church” structure nearly as much as it did to mainline churches of Christ themselves. The majority of leaders in the CoC were viewed as an elderly passing generation that were out of touch with the post modern world. In fact, the fellowship itself appeared to many as an aged group lacking youth and zeal. Leadership was strongly under the control and direction of elderships that were not very supportive of the youthful zeal and foolishness among many campus and Boston ministers. Thus where and when the churches of Christ found themselves slowing down the International Churches of Christ were “Firing up” the fellowship making radical moves. In general the restoration principle was being re-applied and taken to more radical levels. People were being asked to sell homes and give up money and careers. They did so gladly! At least at first. They were inspired and asked to move all over the world to spread the gospel as exemplified in the New Testament. Once again large numbers of people were being baptized. Churches multiplied and thousands were being baptized around the globe. Where Elders stood in control of COC, the ICOC virtually eliminated Elder leadership by placing the evangelist in the drivers seat. In many cases this was fueled more by necessity of a youth filled fellowship than anything, but no doubt was strengthened by a mistrust of elderships. Many of the early ICOC leaders had been fired by elderships unwilling to make changes that they saw as essential. Where the COC was primarily homogenous, the ICOC baptized people of all ethnic backgrounds in high percentages. Minorities were never separated even in the US. Reactions influenced the ICOC in many different ways. Where ICOC leaders judged COC leaders overeducated and unproductive, the ICOC judged all leadership by productivity (baptisms) and disregarded education.  Autonomy was rejected for a united brotherhood structure. Later when this structure was dismantled there still existed a strong disdain for “autonomy”.

 

It is obvious that both groups share common strengths in their restoration principles and reactions to the past. The ICOC is a child of the restoration movement and ready or not, needs to know and understand this truth. We are of the same family with a common DNA that gives us similar strengths and weaknesses. We share a familial portrait. Our goal to restore New Testament Christianity is one in the same. Likewise our desire to unite all Christians in one family is the same. Unfortunately we have made the same mistakes that have caused us disunity as well. Where we differ, in many ways is also a result of our common revolt against the system. For the early restoration groups the system was the traditional European Church. For the ICOC it was the traditional restoration church of Christ. The separation of the two fellowships was recognizably a painful event that most lament. However God always makes lemonade out of lemons. The separation also led to different strengths that can compliment and build each other up if we will only listen and learn from each other. This leads us to part 3. Here are three strengths from each group in which they might help each other

 

 

 

Part 3

A common and uncommon future

The ICOC

 

Generation next impact.

Historically the most fruitful ministries in the International churches of Christ have been the campus ministries. The ICOC was born out of the campus ministry movement. A high percentage of leaders in the ICOC were themselves converted in a Crossroads ministry or by someone who was. One need only attend an average Sunday service to note that in most International churches of Christ the membership is still a relatively young group. Even though many ICOC churches lost their campus focus by the turn of the century, most now recognize that their congregational revivals require a campus focus. Campus ministry is top priority in most of the stronger and larger congregations in the ICOC churches. Although the Churches of Christ also had campus ministries, there were distinctive differences. The Bible Chair ministries first established in 1918 at University of Texas were of a more “Nurturing” nature. They were established to assist the Christian students attending state universities. The Bible chair ministries were even sometimes able to offer college credit for Bible education. Evangelistic efforts were fully supported but not the primary emphasis. In the 1970-80’s the crossroads movement, which would lay the foundation for the ICOC, became a highly controversial issue among the churches of Christ. Many Campus Ministries among the churches of Christ were discontinued as a result. Consequently, the ICOC fellowship has generally a much stronger foothold on major campuses around the world. The success has been extraordinary in converting young people in American Universities as well as foreign campuses.

 

The Evangelistic drive and solutions-

During the last quarter of the 20^th century the Crossroads/ICOC movement has spread to nearly every nation on the Globe. The high evangelistic thrust of the ICOC catapulted the membership from 1980, approximately 4300 membership to over 104,000 in 2004. Evangelism and the missionary spirit was one of the chief hallmarks of the ICOC. Today 60% of the ICOC members live outside the United States in congregations that are mostly led by nationals. During this same time period the Churches of Christ have suffered some of their slowest growth. Churches in the ICOC fellowship have by necessity been forced to learn valuable lessons in training and instruction of young converts, crossing cultural lines, raising up leaders and especially discipling. The ICOC churches have also had to learn valuable lessons from its mistakes. The ICOC lost 30% of its membership in the first part of the 21^st century. Many of the lesson’s learned were closely associated with rapid growth. As the ICOC moves forward, prayerfully the great insights from the rapid growth and the hard lessons from errors in building can serve to strengthen and improve long-term growth. These insights could prove highly valuable to Church of Christ congregations experiencing rapid growth.

 

Racial & Ethnic integration-

The racial and ethnic integration among the International churches is another hallmark of the ICOC. Both in the United States as well as around the globe, evangelistic efforts have made no distinctions in regard to race. As a result the ICOC churches are highly mixed among the different races. Although the overall worldwide leadership is still predominately white American, that is steadily changing. A view of the keynote speakers of the world leadership seminar in 2006, a usual indicator of future leadership, points to a strong future international leadership. Evangelistic thrust has likewise changed the make up of the church in America. Because some communities among the poor tend toward a more open mind and heart, a high proportion of conversions have come from these communities that tend to be immigrant or racially diverse in nature. Thus as many of the larger U.S. churches have grown in number, they also have become more and more ethnic in make up. Furthermore, on the mission fields a high emphasis has always been placed on missionaries baptizing and raising up nationals to lead local congregations. The result being that many of the non-US churches are now lead by nationals. The end result being, that the International churches of Christ are in fact highly international and racially diverse. Historically, the churches of Christ have wrestled with racial diversification. Churches of Christ to this day maintain many primarily “Black” churches and primarily “White” churches.

 

The Churches of Christ

 

Education

The early founders of the restoration movement were highly educated. The Campbell’s were men of superior intellect. Alexander Campbell translated his own version of the Bible from Greek to English. Stone was not only passionate but highly educated as well. The fact that colleges were established so early in the movement is a testament to their commitment to education. Beginning with the first colleges and Campbell’s own Bethany, the churches of the restoration family have held a strong presence in higher education. Early evangelists were educators of the word. It would appear that the education in scripture is the very thing that fueled the fiery spirit of the early restoration evangelist. Their conviction was founded on the confidence that comes from knowing the truth of the scriptures behind the movement. What’s more, the Bible colleges within the states have produced an army of educated evangelists. Although a few of the early leaders held degrees from Bible colleges the vast majority of ICOC leaders were not. Most leaders in the ICOC were drawn from secular campuses and out of sports, academic, fraternity or club leadership roles. Consequently the ICOC evangelists were strong in leadership skills but many times weak in bible background.

 

Experience

Over the past two hundred years the churches of Christ have been through numerous challenges. From the earliest challenges of having to stand alone in doctrine, to the challenges of creating and maintaining unity, the churches of Christ have centuries of experience and lessons learned. A recent article describing the issues facing the churches of Christ could have easily been written for the ICOC. The articles, studies and discoveries by many of the great thinkers like Stone, Campbell, Harding, Lipscomb, McGarvey, Lemmons, Olbricht, Ferguson, just to name a few, need not be repeatedly written or reinvented. So many of the issues that the ICOC is wrestling with today are universal to the restoration movement not just the ICOC. To not draw from the wealth of experience and lessons would be foolhardy at best. Furthermore, as a result of decades of experience, the mainline churches of Christ have a strong body of elder members. Men and women with a lifetime of experience representing a vast pool of wisdom from which younger members may draw.  Even with the recent setbacks the ICOC membership is young both physically and spiritually. There are few among the ICOC who qualify for elderships in the traditional or biblical sense. In many of the foreign churches a member 5 years old in the faith is considered an “older” member.  Many of the mistakes within the International churches of Christ were the type “Young men” make. Some might even say many errors were cases of “zeal without knowledge.” This certainly would not explain all errors, but in fact the nature of many of them. The ICOC is in growing pains very familiar to the churches of Christ.

 

History

            In many ways the Churches of Christ is a family complete with grandparents, cousins (Christian church, non- cooperation churches) past and present heroes and many children. The restoration movement stands on a rich heritage. This is a heritage of bold radical and revolutionary faith, a heritage that the Church of Christ must reclaim.  The International churches of Christ have only recently begun coming to terms with the fact that their movement was not born of the air in 1979. Though many leaders may have known better, many members still do not. There is no doubt that the ICOC is in need of knowing it’s past. The many issues that the ICOC is wrestling with today have been wrestled with before and will probably return on another day. One of the primary issues the ICOC faces is an identity crises. To be sure of ones identity one need know where they came from. It would greatly benefit the ICOC to know their past in order that they may prepare the way for their future. As the warning in revelation states, we must go back to the things done in the early days. To be able to do this one must know who and what was done.

 

Conclusion:

The International churches of Christ and the Churches of Christ are certainly of the same family sharing even the same DNA. The similarities can be clearly traced through history. Even the differences between the two are complimentary and of the same nature. In many ways they are primarily the result of where the two reacted to another, in this case, the ICOC to the COC. This has resulted in common and uncommon traits that can strengthen each other’s future. As many delicate talks concerning unity have arisen over the recent years among restoration groups, perhaps another age will be born fulfilling the original restoration claim that faithful Biblical restoration when fully applied in all its meaning will bring all Christians together in perfect unity. 

 

Robert Carrillo

 

The use of this material in no way suggests that the author endorse this web-site or the views expressed here.