|
 In
his book, Quest For A Christian America, the historian Ed
Harrell, Jr. says the original reformers of the
"restoration movement" had a two-fold ideal.
"Their desire was for 'Christian union' through the
'restoration of the ancient order of things’. While the two
goals seemed perfectly compatible, indeed, inseparable, in the
minds of the early reformers; in later years the dividing
parties began to feel a closer kinship to one or the other of
the two — the liberals, 'Christian union' and the
conservatives, 'the restoration of the ancient order of
things'." (p.10.)
Believing
as we do that union is the result of unity in Christ,
without which "togetherness" is purely a social or
humanistic arrangement, we agree with this analysis. We have
known some who stressed unity (?) at the expense of Bible
authority and/or of conviction — and in a kinship category,
unity (?) on the dubious claim that to "be like us" is
to be right. Last month's center spread; "Truth is a
Sword" should have made clear our conviction that "the
ancient order" must have precedence.
| |
Further,
we are not convinced that "the original reformers"
sought union above all else. Campbell wrote, "I have no
idea of seeing, nor one wish to see, the sects unite in one
grand army... Let them unite who love the Lord, and then we
shall soon see the hireling priesthood and their worldly
establishments prostrate in the dust." (Christian Baptist,
V.2; n.9.) Today, those who act and speak as though division due
to conscientious conviction is a denial of "restoration
principles," need to ask themselves why the reformers did
not stay with their former religious affiliations.
But
there is more for the thoughtful saint. Have we stressed
"being right" into a self-contradiction? Are we
"right" who have no concern for brethren in error? Are
we "right" who will not honestly seek to understand
another brother's viewpoint, and make joint effort to measure
the true issue by the scriptures? Is truth fearful of
investigation?
If
the dual goals of restoration are truly "inseparable,"
dare we neglect legitimate efforts for union?
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
