Articles
Who Started the Church of Christ?
The answer is obvious, yet many have distorted the very words of Christ. In short, people have blasphemed the Creator for not abiding in the truth of His word. Perhaps there are individuals that are not completely aware of their distorted view of Scripture, but ultimately that will not excuse them in the Final Judgment. Just as 1 Pet. 3:15 commands the faithful to give a defense, so one needs to be able to explain who founded the body of Christ.
What the Bible Says
Jesus declared in Matt. 16:18, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” In this discourse with His disciples, Jesus is telling them that the confession of Christ is foundational upon the building of the church. History shows that a misunderstanding of this one verse has caused no small form of condemnation of countless souls. The Savior emphasized that there is only one church. No indication was ever given by the Lord that there were to be multiple variations or sects. The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, proclaims the authority of Christ approved of by the Father, “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). Paul further adds, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6). Few, however, understand and are aware that God’s word speaks clearly of what the church is and of its Builder.
From the beginnings of the church, various troubles plagued the union of believers. The first potential issue occurred in Acts chapter 5, involving Ananias and Sapphira, which if not addressed immediately could have allowed sin to destroy what had just been established. Thankfully, God is just and did not permit this transgression to go unpunished. Another situation arises in chapter 6, which if not handled appropriately, would bring about a fracture or worse. Again, the disciples were able to judiciously, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, solve another potential crisis. Eventually, as the church spread throughout the known world in the 1st century, issues would inevitably occur. Paul speaks bluntly in Acts 20:28-30, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” No other apostle wrote more about the divisiveness and the necessity of oneness in the church. Possibly the clearest example given is 1 Cor. 1:10-13, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Regrettably, the church did not maintain the desire to hold close to heart the one truth, and therefore separations eventually developed. As in the days of the Old Testament, there only remains a remnant who seek to keep strictly to what the Scriptures say.
Churches of Christ Prior to Alexander Campbell
Before continuing any further, it is necessary to point out that there have been individuals who assembled together that were identified as churches of Christ well before the Campbells and the Restoration Movement, a truth contrary to many false accusations against churches of Christ. Groups were located in: Scotland, England, and Ireland. Interestingly enough, Campbell submitted this information in his publication, “The Christian Baptist,” and still can be read today (“The Christian Baptist”, Vol. V). In addition to Campbell’s own writing, there have been other sources that have written on the church. In an article from “Truth Magazine,” the following was written: "In the Furness District of Lancashire - in N. W. England-there existed in 1669, during the reign of Charles II, a group of eight churches of Christ. Most of them are not now in existence. An old minute book has been found of the year 1669 and it shows that they called themselves by the name of church of Christ, practiced baptism by immersion, celebrated the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day, and had elders and deacons. There was also a church of Christ in Dungannon, Ireland in 1804 and in Allington, Dengighshire. In 1735, John Davis, a young preacher in the Fife District of Scotland, was preaching New Testament Christianity twenty-five years before Thomas Campbell (Alexander Campbell's father) was born" (Thomas O’Neal, Truth Magazine October 1975).
Campbell and Other Important Figures of the Restoration Movement
Over the centuries, various human creeds filled the religious world and wreaked havoc upon the church. Because of those human innovations, many lost their way and the church was no longer based solely on the word of God. Not until individuals began to question what was in these manmade creations, that it was necessary to return to the authority of the Scriptures. A movement to restore the church to the way the Bible lays out in the book of Acts arose. One of the key figures, Thomas Campbell, said, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent” (Mattox, The Eternal Kingdom: A History of the Church, 318). He and his son Alexander were instrumental in returning the church to worshipping God based on what was written in the New Testament. Sadly, confusion and ignorance have arisen over the influence of Alexander Campbell and other Restoration preachers. Consider the following words from Alexander Campbell himself concerning the accusation that he was starting a new denomination:
- "You have done me, gentlemen, too much honor in saying that I am the 'founder' of the denomination, quite numerous and respectable in many portions of the West, technically known as 'Christians,' but more commonly as 'Campbellites.' … "I have always repudiated all human heads and human names for the people of the Lord, and shall feel very thankful if you will correct the erroneous impression which your article may have made in thus representing me as the founder of a religious denomination" (Richardson, Memoirs of Campbell, II, 441).
- “SOME religious editors in Kentucky call those who are desirous of seeing the ancient order of things restored, "the Restorationers." "The Campbellites," and the most reproachful epithets are showered upon them because they have some conscientious regard to the Divine Author and the divine authority of the New Testament. This may go down very well with some; but all who fear God and keep his commandments will pity and deplore the weakness and folly of those who either think to convince or to persuade by such means” (The Christian Baptist, Vol. IV, 88-89).
- “It is a nickname of reproach invented and adopted by those whose views, feelings, and desires are all sectarian--who cannot conceive of Christianity in any other light than an ism” (The Christian Baptist, Vol V., 270).
There is a great deal of false information regarding Alexander Campbell and the church of Christ. The notion that he is the founder of the church of Christ and that it is a “cult,” are but two small examples. Something to keep in mind is, “The weaknesses of denominationalism and the basic principles necessary to restoring the New Testament church were being preached by many others before Alexander came to America” (Mattox, 317). Thomas Campbell, before his son Alexander, began to seek to reestablish the authority of Scripture rather than adhere to a denominational way of thinking. His greatest contribution to the Restoration was a writing entitled, “Declaration and Address.” “It was set forth as an intelligent basis upon which Christians could unite” (Mattox, 320). F.W. Mattox cites Campbell, “…all the Churches of Christ which mutually acknowledge each other as such, are not only agreed in the great doctrines of faith and holiness, but are also materially agreed as to the positive ordinances of the Gospel institution; so that our differences, at most, are about the things in which the kingdom of God does not consist, that is, about matters of private opinion or human invention.”
Interestingly, neither Thomas nor Alexander had a complete knowledge of the biblical plan of salvation. One thing that both came to the same conclusion was on the subject of baptism. Thomas came to the conclusion that infant baptism was not biblical and eventually his son came to the same understanding. The Campbells realized that to be obedient to the Word they needed to be immersed; consequently, both were baptized on June 12, 1812. Alexander engaged with others in debates on the issue of baptism. At the time, the Campbell beliefs were very controversial in regards to infant baptism. However, no one could defeat the case that Alexander laid out in the debates that immersion for believers was biblical and Scripture was silent on infant baptism.
While churches of Christ would agree with the Campbells on the subject of baptism and the notion of only using the Bible as the source of authority and not human creed, there were areas which the church and the Campbells do not see eye to eye. The church of Christ is autonomous and is not tied to any governing body outside of its local assembly, whereas Alexander Campbell did associate with Baptist Associations. He had the right motives, but this does not agree with Scripture. Campbell believed that fellowship with other Baptists was appropriate, because he could point out their erring ways in hopes to point them towards the Scriptures as the only true source of authority. His influence sparked much controversy among various groups. People that would follow his direction would allow fellowship with others even if it meant that doctrine was not in common. Sound doctrine was not fundamental to the so-called “Campbell movement.” Even though Campbell was viewed as legalistic, he and his followers clearly compromised in areas where they should not have. One of the greatest differences between Campbell and the church of Christ is that of missionary societies. He initially disagreed with the institution, but came to see it as benefit even though it did not align itself with Scripture. In 1849, the American Christian Missionary Society was formed, and Alexander Campbell was its first president (Stephen Lane, Truth Magazine August 1958). The church was never authorized to be part of such an institution or any other institution for that matter.
People mistakenly believe that the Campbells formed the church of Christ. Ironically, one would say that he did more to bring about another denomination, which was something he fought against and saw as anti-scriptural. “On January 4, 1830, Campbell issued the first number of his new Millennial Harbinger, a monthly which continued under his leadership through thirty-five volumes. This paper did much to solidify the gains made by the reformers, but it was through his teachings in the Harbinger concerning church cooperation that Campbell unwittingly laid the framework for the Disciples of Christ denomination” (ibid.). Alexander had thus changed what he and his father had set out to do, and that was to speak where the Bible speaks and to remain silent where the Scriptures are silent.
The Campbells were not the only ones who desired to return to following only what the Bible had explicitly taught. Barton W. Stone was another prominent figure of the Restoration Movement. Stone was a Presbyterian minister, but found difficulty with the use of human creeds and eventually in 1804, along with other men deemed it necessary to dissolve affiliation with Presbyterianism and any other denominations. Stone would work tirelessly to share God’s word with others. He would go on to be immersed in 1807, but never did come to the conclusion that baptism was part of the plan of salvation. In fact, baptism was one of the differences between Stone and Campbell. Another distinction was that Stone did not believe that the Lord’s Supper was necessary to be observed every first day of the week. Even with these differences, the two men did meet and established a fellowship between their groups. That is why the Restoration Movement became known also as the Stone-Campbell Movement.
Another contemporary and companion of Campbell, Walter Scott, would go on to be a successful evangelist. It was Scott, after analyzing the conversions in the book of Acts, who came to the conclusion that a sinner needed to take certain steps in order that they be saved. Scott’s plan of salvation included: “1) Faith to change the heart; 2) Repentance to change the life; 3) Baptism to change the state; 4) Remission of sins to cleanse from guilt; 5) The gift of the Holy Spirit to help in the Christian life and make one a partaker of the divine nature” (Shepherd, The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration, 237). Scott would end up differing with Campbell on the notion of unity. Campbell was concerned with unity of churches, whereas Scott believed that individuals would be unified once they were united with Christ.
No one can doubt that the work accomplished by men such as the Campbells, Barton Stone, and Walter Scott, had an enormous impact on bringing people back to the pattern of the New Testament church. Even they did not all agree and follow the commandments of God as written by the apostles. Some had varying views on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and not a complete knowledge of what a person must do to be saved. The desire to follow only what the Scriptures had laid out was clear between these individuals. All must remember that these were just men. They had no authority or claimed that they had established the church. No human being, except the Son of Man, has built the church.
The Bible is the Final Word on the Matter
What is in a name? It is a defining quality of what or who something is in its essence. The church’s name cannot be chosen in an irreverent manner, but must follow the biblical standard. Paul writes in Rom. 16:16, “Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.” The church can rightfully be referred to as the church of Christ. Other acceptable names that a group of believers can use are: church of God, church of the Living God, or just church of a particular town or street. That is to name a few, but no matter what may be on the sign outside a building, it is what happens inside that what matters. Does the worship conform strictly to what God has commanded in His word? Do not misunderstand that a name does not matter, because it does. Even a building with church of Christ on the outside may still not follow the Word.
Before Jesus was arrested, He lifted up a prayer to the Father that was of great significance to all who would eventually hear the Gospel, “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20-21). There is no doubt that the very words of Christ emphasize the unity of all believers. Jesus provided much insight about His kingdom, and probably no more sobering words than, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).
