Lecture on the Restoration Movement held at the Pines Christian Church, Mount Gilead, OH, 2019
Restoration Movement Symposium, October 29, 2019
The Restoration Movement, also known as the Stone-Campbell Movement, began in the early 1800s under the leadership of Barton W. Stone, Thomas Campbell, and Alexander Campbell. Stone was originally a Presbyterian minister who was inspired by the spiritual unity of the early open-air revivals held in KY under speakers like James McGready whom he came to know from North Carolina inciting him to conduct the Cane Ridge Revival (1801). He promoted reliance on the Bible alone. Meanwhile, the Campbells were espousing similar ideas within Baptist circles through the 1810s and 1820s.
We are not sentenced to the verdict of coincidence when it comes to how the events to form this Second Great Awakening transpired. By second, I mean following after a FIRST, referring to 1730s to 1770s “Awakening” known by men like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. The First Great Awakening gave rise to the search and application of scriptural TRUTH and the concentration on defining the identity of the believer and his relationship to Jesus Christ. It was on the coat tail of the first “Awakening” that the second could be given an adequate stage on which to play out.
To bridge that gap to where we will concern ourselves in this evening in Kentucky, James McGready had his part in making fertile the soil for revival. In 1796, James McGready left North Carolina to preach in Logan County, KY. Having left his mark on Barton W. Stone, he continued to preach revivals in many states besides.
While on the national stage, God saw fit to transform the religious bodies separated by schisms and yet united under a newfound national liberty, to form a more perfect Christian union. Men like Rice Haggard who coincidentally was traveling from the body of O’Kellyites in VA to visit family in KY and to perhaps buy land. Rice while meeting up with his brother David Haggard who was Presbyterian circuit preacher in the area of Lexington, KY, would providentially meet Barton W. Stone and inspire Stone with taking the identity as simply “Christian.” Thus, uniting southern Christians.
In the east, Elias Smith, a preacher, and Abner Jones, a physician, would begin to stir the fires of reform in New England. By 1832, all parties had been made familiar to each other and the Restoration Movement was in full bloom.
We can not neglect the fact that the 17th century was overwhelmed in philosophical, industrial, ecumenical, institutional, economical, governmental and theological discourse. Schisms existed in almost ever discipline of thought.
Within the discipline of theology, there was a debate regarding the doctrine of the godhead which differentiated itself by rudimentary means between Unitarian and Trinitarian schools.
Arianism was a heresy named after Arius (ca. 250-336), bishop of Alexandria. Arius taught that Jesus was not God. One of his famous dictums was “there once was as a time when the Son was not,” i.e., there was a time when Jesus did not exist. The Council of Nicea convened specifically to condemn this heresy (the result of this council was the Nicene Creed of AD 325 which affirmed the deity of Christ).
Although Stone denied being an Arian, it was clear that he affirmed the heresy. In a logic chopping manner, very much like Arius, Stone spoke of Jesus as “divine” but not actually “God.” For Stone, Jesus is “divine” in the sense that the “Father dwells in him” and that the “fullness of God was in him.” Describing it further, the nature of Christ is similar to how water fills a bucket–the bucket itself is not water, but is filled with water, Jesus being the vessel. Only the “divinity in him . . . was eternal” according to Stone.
More plainly, Stone expressed his view thus: My own views of the Son of God, are, that he did not begin to exist 1820 years ago; nor did he exist from eternity; but was the first begotten of the Father before time or creation began–that he was sent by the Father 1820 years ago into the world, and united with a body, prepared for him; and that in him dwelt all the fullness of Godhead bodily. These propositions I will endeavor to establish by arguments drawn from the oracles of truth. . .it is plain, that the one God, whose name is the Father, is the only efficient cause of all things; and that the one Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, is the instrumental cause of all things. This proves that there are two distinct beings; and that the Son, the first born of every creature, existed before all worlds, angels, and men, consequently before he was united with the body prepared for him. To say the Son was very God, and yet that the Father created all things by him, is the same as to say, that one God created by another God. “But to us there is but one God, the Father.”
Here is where I must interject Soren Kierkegaard. Yes, I know, He lived a few decades after Stone, but we CAN take his interpretation of Dutch Lutheranism and apply it to the time of Barton W. Stone. Considered to be the “Father of Existentialism,” the works of Kierkegaard were not recognized by any merit until 100 years after his untimely death. French existentialism in particular articulated that there can be no essence until after existence and therefore the existential theology could not justify the church’s teaching of the God the Son being equal with God in essence because Scripture considers Him “begotten of the Father.” Only God had an eternal essence and therefore singular deity. For Christ to be a man, he must first be created a vessel to be filled. Hence, humanity, importantly the humanity of Christ, is a bucket devoid of meaning apart form what fills it by another.
For Stone, Jesus was not “equal in essence, being or eternity” with the Father. As the quote I read clearly implies, there was a time when the Son was not. Despite Stone’s denials, this is Arianism. But how would Stone know? He never read Arius’ position, as he even admits!
“I know not what the real sentiments of Arius were,” commented Stone, “having never seen his writings; nor have I seen his sentiments, but through the coloring of his enemies.”
If Stone had ever read Arius, he would have seen how closely all his arguments resembled Arius’ very own views.
Alexander Campbell found it necessary to correspond with Stone on more than a few occasions to keep in check his belief system and confirm his convictions.
1820– in Stone’s Address to the Churches, he writes:
That the Son of God was very and eternal God, and yet eternally begotten, is a doctrine to which I cannot subscribe; because the terms eternal Son–eternally begotten are not found in the Bible. As they are human inventions, by human reason they may be tried, without the imputation of impiety.
Interestingly, Stone denied not only the deity of Christ, but also the substitutionary atonement. The atonement, again, is one the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, stating that Christ took the place of sinners to atone for their sins. Stone was very emphatic that Jesus did not take the place of sinners on the cross. In a very lengthy discussion with Alexander Campbell in the Millennial Harbinger, Stone wrote, The doctrine of vicarious, or substituted punishment, is the fundamental of orthodox divinity. Where, brother Campbell, shall we find the term substitute with application to Christ? Did he, as such, satisfy the demands of law and justice against the sinner, and reconcile or propitiate God to a sinful world? Does law or justice admit of such substituted punishment? Where is it required, or found in the Bible?
The moral influence theory of the atonement maintains that the death of Christ was not necessary as a means of removing sin. Instead, the loving sacrifice of Christ, as such a wonderful and selfless act, influences the hearts and minds of those who hear about it and moves them to repentance and trust in Christ. It was first proposed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142).
The betrayal, trial, and crucifixion of Christ is stripped of it’s atoning power and reduced to an exercise that beckons the sinner to repentance. Alexander Campbell correctly deduced the theory of Christ’s passion, as interpreted by Stone to be a belief that the, “only necessity for the death of Christ to have occurred, is its superior fitness to produce repentance.”
Considering the revival of August 1801, it must be said there is much to be commended regarding the motivation of the meeting. The Cane Ridge Revival should be commended for its ecumenicism and (evidently) preaching that led to the salvation of some, a number of those who were saved, Barton Stone says in his autobiography, “will be known only in eternity.” If the events of what happened that August of 1801 were to happen at Hillsboro Family Camp, the conduct of the attendees may be questioned as of what had been behind such “animated” behavior. Why do I say this? What was called at Cane Ridge: “religious exercises” could be interpreted as something entirely different.
People barked like dogs, fell to the ground in fits of non-stop laughter, sang songs that came from their chest, and danced and ran in such a manner that caused many to fall to the ground and cease in the ability to get up. Some people went into jerking motions, keeping both feet flat on the ground while their forehead would hit the ground in one motion and then the back of their head hitting the ground when jerking in the opposite direction. Others would cry out in loud screams and fall to the ground unconscious. Oddly, it was even said that women got pregnant. (If there is any doubt that these “exercises” occurred, one need to look no further than Stone’s autobiography in which he testifies to them.) If you read Elder John Rogers’ biography of Barton W. Stone, 1853, you will read page after page in defense of the occurrences at Cane Ridge and why so many abandoned Stone to return to Presbyterianism or another sect as even in the case of David Purvience who elected to join the Shaking Quakers for what was rumored, “to enjoy to the utmost the liberty of dancing, barking, jerking, etc.”
This was the context of the Restoration Movement, and yet the handshake of fellowship was offered for the reason of attaining unity. Even among their differences, the early frontiersman of the movement found much to celebrate and gave rise to much increase for Kingdom purposes.
Upon visiting the grave of Barton W. Stone, it is said that after pondering for a time, Mr. Alexander Campbell said: “That should read ‘A distinguished reformer.'” Mr. Rogers replied: “Before causing this inscription to be engraved, I sent a copy of it to all of the leading preachers of the Church of Christ for their criticism and suggestions, and they have returned it unaltered. What I have written I have written.” Whether or not he had the right to that distinction posterity must decide, but as far as history goes, his was the first voice that was heard in the wilderness advocating a return to the practice and teachings of the Apostles, and declaring for Bible names for Bible things. That he did not at first see the whole truth is not surprising; that sometimes he saw “men as trees walking,” is not to be wondered at, but this remains true of him: as he saw the light he followed it, let it lead where it would, and cared not for the consequences to himself or others.
“A TRIBUTE TO DEPARTED WORTH. He has gone! His wife, his children, his brethren, will see him here no more. He has gone from his labors, to his rest—from his sufferings to enjoyments forevermore in heaven. He was a good man. Goodness was his chief greatness. He was great besides his goodness ; but goodness was its crown—his glory was goodness. It was his breast-plate and strength. His bitterest opponents were constrained to say, ”-his moral character is unblamable.^” His motto was ‘-‘Christian union and the Bible, and the Bible alone.”” His Banner was the Crossly-gemmed with Bethlehem’s Star! His employment was like that of his Master, to do good to the souls and bodies of men. Kindness sat smiling on his brow. Many loved him, because he first loved them. Thus has he embalmed himself in the warm, pure affections of a great multitude ; and aided in originating, and giving impulse to a reformation wave, whose onward roll shall be commensurate and co-extensive with eternity. He was a disciple beloved of Christ; and who died, as he lived, leaning on the bosom of his Savio\ir. Speculative errors he might have held ; but let the faultless, in this respect, cast at him the next stone! And let those whose errors are, perhaps, greater than were his, be sparing of invectives and misrepresentations ; remembering, that *’with what judgment we judge, we shall be judged, and with what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again.” Take him, all in all, his like, we fear, we shall not shortly see again. But he rests from his toils, and persecutions, and his works do follow him. Farewell! excellent spirit, till we meet in the Spirit-land ! Farewell ! philanthropist, and benefactor of thy race!!!”