In his book,
The Stone-Campbell Movement, Leroy Garrett sets forth in the first
chapter the thesis of which he reminds his readers throughout the
book, that the I 'pioneer preachers" were reformers, not
restorationists. "It should be noticed that these pioneers referred
to their efforts as reformation, not restoration" (p. 6). Mr.
Garrett defines the problem of restorationism in this way: "A
restorationist rejects existing denominations as in any sense the
church, ignores whatever has happened in intervening centuries, and
insists upon restoring the primitive church. He assumes that the New
Testament provides a fixed pattern for that church, and so there
have been literally hundreds of sects, each claiming to be the true
church" (p. 7).
According to
Mr. Garrett, Campbell did not look to the New Testament as
"providing an exact blueprint or pattern for the church, which he
sought to 'restore' in an age when the church no longer existed" (p.
9). Mr. Garrett's interpretation of history is that the work of
Stone, Campbell, and others was basically that of a continuation of
the reforms of such men as Martin Luther, and other reformers of the
sixteenth century.
Actually, the
beliefs and actions of the pioneer preachers does not establish what
is right or wrong. That can only be established by the Word of God.
Further, it is not our purpose to "restore" the "Restoration
Movement. " But it does seem that in his effort to prove his
theology that Mr. Garrett overstates his case. He says that the
concept, "We are out to restore the church, not to reform it" was "
not the view of the pioneers of the Stone-Campbell Movement" (p. 9).
While some of
our readers perhaps have access to Lard's Quarterly, no doubt many
do not. Moses E. Lard was well acquainted with Alexander Campbell.
His biographer, Van Deusen, said that while a student at Bethany
College, Moses Lard and his wife were given the building that housed
the printing office of the Millennial Harbinger. It was only about
200 feet from the Campbell home. "Lard was able to have a
relationship with Campbell that no other student at Bethany ever
enjoyed. After four years of this intimate association, it could be
said that nobody understood the mind of Campbell as well as Moses E.
Lard" (Moses Lard, That Prince of Preachers, p. 58). Campbell's own
estimation of Lard may be seen in that when the Baptist Jeremiah B.
Jeter penned Campbellism Examined, a vicious attack on Campbell and
his beliefs, Campbell selected Lard to write the refutation, Review
of Campbellism Examined (297 pages).
We mention
these matters to show that Moses E. Lard was in a position to speak
with some knowledge and authority concerning what he, Campbell, and
other such preachers were trying to accomplish. In an article
entitled, "Have We Not Become A Sect?", Lard addresses himself to
some of the same issues as does Garrett regarding the goals they
were trying to accomplish. Interestingly, Mr. Lard's perspective is
not the same as that which Mr. Garrett attributes to the pioneer
preachers.
Lard wrote,
"We are sometimes termed Reformers, and the work in which we are
engaged the Reformation, and sometimes in an accommodated sense we
thus term ourselves and our work. What does the language mean? I
have long been convinced that it carries a false import. The word
Reformers, as applied to us, means simply a new kind of sectarians,
and the word Reformation the work and principles of a new sect. But
this is far from the sense in which we use them. In what sense,
then, if at all, are we reformers? Certainly not in this, that we
propose merely to reform existing so called sects and parties
(emphasis mine, LM). When reformed, they would still fall
immeasurably below the work we wish to see effected. This work done,
and we should have neither sects nor sectarians, but only the church
of Christ and Christians. . ."
"I doubt not
the word Reformers was first applied to us because it was supposed
that we intended merely to reform the Baptist denomination, with
which many of our brethren originally stood connected; but we never
proposed to reform that denomination. The reformation we proposed
looked solely to individual Christians and not to denominations.
Many Baptists we then regarded, and still regard as sincere
Christians (i.e. Lard did not think they needed to be re-baptized, a
view with which I would disagree, LM), but as in error in several
things. In these things we proposed a reformation; but at the same
time we required an abandonment of all party connections, names, and
peculiarities. We proposed that the Baptists should be Christians
simply, and should cease to be Baptists; and that they should belong
to the church of Christ only, and not to the Baptist denomination.
In only a very restricted sense, therefore, can we be termed
reformers; and that a sense which in no respect distinguishes us
from the simplest and purest type of Christians."
Lard
continued, "But in this sense we are not Reformers, neither is the
work in which we are engaged a Reformation. Indeed, our work is
strictly a Formation and not a Reformation. We are laboring solely
to build up the church of Christ, and neither to build nor, rebuild,
form nor reform, any thing different from it" (Lard's Quarterly;
March 1864, pp. 257, 258).
Furthermore,
regarding Mr. Garrett's assertion that Campbell did not view the New
Testament "as providing an exact blueprint or pattern for the
church" consider Lard's closing remarks in the same preceding
article: "Finally, we accept as the matter of our faith precisely
and only what the Bible teaches, rejecting everything else; and in
our practice endeavor to conform strictly to what it, and it alone,
enjoins either in precept or in precedent. In life and heart we aim
to be all and purely what it requires. We wear no name which it does
not sanction; and repudiate all sects, parties, and apostasies, as
well as any and every conceivable form of connection with them. If,
then, we are still a sect, I submit it to the candid reader,
whether, upon any ground known to him, he can acquit the apostles
and primitive Christians of that offensive charge?" (p. 259)
Clearly, Moses Lard would not agree with Mr. Garrett's assessment of
the motives and work of the pioneer preachers.
Another
related recurring concept Mr. Garrett proposes is, "History clearly
demonstrates that restorationism by its very nature is divisive" (p.
10). Therefore, he views those who regard the New Testament as a
pattern for churches today to be responsible for religious division.
He especially charges the churches of Christ as being found guilty.
He refers to churches of Christ as exclusivists. In pages 601-610,
the words "exclusivist" or "exclusivism" are found no less than ten
times! While reading the annoying repetitions the question occurred
to me as to whether Mr. Garrett either owned or had access to a
Thesaurus.
Careful
readers can see that words such as "exclusivism" and "legalism" (the
use of which also frequently occurs) are used to put in a bad light
those who believe in strict adherence to the Word of God. Such
language depreciates obedience to Christ. Jesus said, "Not every one
that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by
thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many
mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:21-23). Any
problems with "exclusivism" is a problem with Jesus, not with
pioneer preachers.
In the New
Testament, those, and only those, who obeyed Jesus' conditions of
salvation were regarded as Christians. They were not over wrought
because they were "exclusively" Christians. We have not the power to
tamper with the gate that leads to life, to adjust it any wider or
narrower than Jesus designed it.
Guardian of Truth - November 19, 1987
|