It is this big-tent, anti-confessional mentality that has caused some confessional, Reformed, Calvinistic Baptists to leave the SBC and join other like-minded associations. The big tent is falling, just like it has before. Does an examination of church history reveal that the big tent, anti-creedal, anti-confessional approach leads to eventual decline? There is a marked latitudinarian poverty in too many local Southern Baptist Associations that make up the Convention.
Writing in his blog a few years ago, Wade Burleson, trustee of the International Mission Board of the SBC, commented on article three of The Baptist Faith and Message 2000,” stating it, “teaches that the descendants of Adam are not under condemnation ‘until’ they are capable of moral action.”
Burleson knew that the more Calvinistic Southern Baptists would openly object. So, Burleson wrote:
“…I frankly believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam’s one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the ‘tent’ is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith” (Burleson 2006).
It is this big-tent, anti-confessional mentality that has caused some confessional, Reformed, Calvinistic Baptists to leave the SBC and join other like-minded associations. The big tent is falling, just like it has before. Does an examination of church history reveal that the big tent, anti-creedal, anti-confessional approach leads to eventual decline? There is a marked latitudinarian poverty in too many local Southern Baptist Associations that make up the Convention.
Some may dispute the anti-confessional charge. But but the question is not “are you Southern Baptist?” anymore. The question is, “which camp do you belong to under the big top?” Are you in the Calvinist camp, the Arminian ring, the Moderate arm, in the Conservative quarter, with the Liberal minded, looking for the antichrist with the Dispensational folks, or are you a Third-Waver or Charismatic…? The tent is just too big in these postmodern times. What does it mean to be a Southern Baptist today? Does the diluted BFAM cover that question? Quick, name some famous Southern Baptists… Bill Clinton comes to mind….how about Britany Spears- thought I read she was in the SBC somewhere, right? Can’t count Jimmy Carter, he left.
Unity is no excuse for anyone to be a poor theologian. We are charged to preach the whole counsel of God- even the parts that offend men and women who would think themselves autonomous and divorced from God. Liberty of the soul doesn’t mean liberty from God’s truth. Truth touches both the non-believer and believer alike, whether one believes in God and/or absolute truth or not. All will soon be accountable to Christ whether they acknowledge his Lordship or not.
And make no mistake- doctrine does divide. Preaching Christ will offend. Sooner or later the hard working exegetical pastor will have to mention at least something about wrath, Hell, sin, the moral Law of God, or perhaps even those dreaded “P” or “E” words- unless the pastor just elects to skip Romans 9 or feel as if he is not predestined to preach particular verses like John 6:44 and 2 Timothy 2:25-26.
One of the goals of what some pejoratively called the Campbellite Movement was Christian unity- an attempt to unite Christians of all stripes, and finally bring them all them under a big tent that excluded no one. But this big tent kind of unity meant creeds and confessions had to go. Creeds and confessions, after all, caused division.
Why, confessions were procrustean beds that either stretched you out in order to fit, or cut you down so you would. The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement might serve as lesson in history for the Southern Baptist Convention. It might map out where the big tent mentality, the “there’s room for all,” and “let’s just love Jesus and drop all the theology so we can be one” pragmatic scheme ultimately leads.
What happens when a church, convention, or denomination forsakes sound doctrine for this “room-for-all,” appeal? What happens when a group or movement becomes so anti-creedal, anti-confessional, and so anti-theological that it pushes even Christ aside for the sake of a superficial (even blithely sentimental) unity? A latitudinarian poverty results, and decline follows. The big tent eventually falls. It must.
“Just ignore theology and history, and we’ll have fried chicken and a potluck – don’t want to make them deacons mad.” Worse, some in the SBC are ignoring Scripture and sound doctrine in order to enlarge the tent… and the result is decay.
USA Today reported in 2011 that the SBC is in decline. CNN reported in 2012 that the fastest growing group in American is composed of those who claim no religious affiliation at all. CNN also reported Protestantism-in general – is in decline. USA Today offered a quote from Lifeway President Ed Stetzer, who notes, “This is not a blip… this is a trend. And the trend is one of decline” (Smietana 2011).
The average Southern Baptist knows very little about the faith of Boyce, Manly, Dagg, Howell, and other godly men who helped found the Southern Baptist Convention (but they can tell you all about Charles Stanley – hey, no offense, Chuck). A trip to your local Lifeway Bookstore will yield works by “Doctor” John Haggee, copies of the scholarly Scofield Bible, and “Heaven is For Real.” Perhaps Stetzer should begin investigating this decline by checking out the shelves in his stores- noting the theologically vacuous material sold in the average Lifeway bookstore.
Reformed Baptists must be students of not only theology, but church history as well, in order that they might sound a loving and timely warning. Philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952), in Life of Reason I, wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” There is a big difference between the ideas of the various 19th and 20th century restoration groups (Mormons, The Restoration Movement, Primitive Baptists, Pentecostals, et. al.) and the ideas of the Reformation.
It could be argued the 1800s were indeed a time of bringing strange fire in American churches. Sentimentalists are often prone to romantically say they miss “the good ole days.” But a serious study of 19th century American church history may make one question the very idea of “the good old days.” We often think post-modernity is a doctrinal free-for-all, but looking back….
Consider the words of author Ernest Sandeen, who contended that people in the 19th century were in a stupor, “drunk on the millennium1.” The 19th century was a dreadful time of false teachers and cultic movements. Movements arose from within established churches. 19th century America saw the arrival of Seventh Day Adventism – originating from William Miller’s date-setting error. For the record, Miller at least initially, was a professed Baptist (John Gerstner once argued a strong confession and sound community of faith may have stopped Miller from stepping into error). Miller’s folly was compounded later by Ellen G. White’s plagiarized “prophecies.2”
Also staggering out of the 19th century was Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science, a pseudo-religion that was later mixed with twentieth century Pentecostalism to create today’s heretical Word-Faith Movement3. The 19th century also fomented the formation of Watchtower Organization, otherwise known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses2. But these deviant movements are not the only Scripture-twisting groups to come out of this “drunk” and doctrinally confused century.
Since 1517, many in the church have worked, died, and prayed for reformation. The idea of reformation concerns reforming constantly around Christ and his Word, which is nothing like the feeble 19th century idea of restoration. The idea behind the various restoration movements was simple: the original, primitive apostolic church must be restored, because the true church Christ established had been lost (all this despite the clear teaching of Matthew 16:18).
Alexander Campbell had his own vision for and version of this 19th century restoration idea. But unlike Mormon founder Joseph Smith, Campbell did not claim to be a prophetic voice singing forth new revelation, and he didn’t claim to be restoring the priesthood. Three men are noted at the top among what is called The Restoration Movement: Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell, and Alexander Campbell (aka, “the Stone-Campbell movement”). Arguably, younger Campbell would take the reins and propel this movement farther than his Father, Thomas, or Stone.
Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary Professor of Church History, Dr. James North, writes in “Union in Truth: An interpretive History of the Restoration Movement, “The preeminent purpose of the Restoration Movement,” the driving desire behind Thomas and Alexander Campbell’s brand of Restoration thought is, “Restoration of Biblical authority, that the church may be united, in order that the world may be won according to the prayer of Jesus…” (North 1994).
Jesus asked the Father that the church “may all be one” (John 17:21), but Jesus apparently had no power to make this a reality, according the various restoration folk. Hence, the Stone-Campbell movement set out to do what Christ could only petition for: restore Biblical authority and unity to the church. How would this be done? Campbell proposed a big tent approach- making us all one by erasing those Old World confessions.
But even North is candid and forthcoming enough to share the old joke about the Restoration Movement: “The Apostle John died, and Alexander Campbell was born.” North also admits:
The Restoration Movement has put such emphasis on the restoration of the apostolic church and the idealization of early Christianity that we often forget that there were seventeen centuries of church history separating the apostles from the restoration pioneers around the year 1800. It is too easy, though appallingly attractive, to just skip from the apostolic period to the Restoration Movement (North 1994).
Alexander and his father both came from Ireland. Thomas Campbell (1763-1854) arrived in America first, setting the stage for the coming of the son. When Thomas Campbell set sail for America, he left his family in the charge of his eldest son, Alexander (1788-1866). Alexander was eighteen years old at the time (North 1994).
Thomas’ dissent against his fellow Presbyterians and his actions in America created the springboard that moved his son to forefront of what would become The Restoration Movement. Thomas had joined the Anti-burgher Seceder version of the Presbyterian Church while in Ireland. Thomas went from working as a school teacher to laboring as a minister. But the Presbyterian confessional influences were, seemingly, not as strong as the evangelical fads and secular philosophies that swirled about Thomas.
North notes that Thomas was influenced by John Walker, a former Anglican priest turned traveling evangelist. Walker left the Anglicans, “because of their worldliness” (North 1994). Walker threw off his vestments, and travelled Ireland on foot, desiring to be like the original disciples. North points out that Walker’s attitude toward the professional clergy and disparagement of dry liturgy later influenced Alexander’s ideas.
Another influence to be factored in: the Glas-Sandeman Movement. John Glas (1695-1773) left Presbyterianism over questions about “church-state relationships,” informing churches they should instead be autonomous, and that they should follow only the New Testament example. Robert Sandeman (1718-1771) was Glas’ son-in-law. He rejected the view that faith was a gift of God. For Sandeman, “people believe in Christ much the same way the same way they believe in any historical figure” (North 1994). North points out this Sandemanian view later influenced Walter Scott, who labored with Alexander Campbell in their restoration. This Sandemanian view of faith downplayed the supernatural and miraculous aspect of saving faith. This Sandemanian view posits that saving faith isn’t miraculous, or necessarily God’s gift- it is what happens when one musters up practical belief and chooses to exercise it.
North also notes that the Campbells would later borrow these concepts from the Glas-Sandeman movement and place them for common use in the Restoration Movement catalog: “weekly communion…distinguishing the New Testament’s Lord’s day from the Old Testament Sabbath, and the proper name for the church was ‘the church of Christ.’” Even though North freely admits “The Restoration Movement inherited many of the concepts (of the Glas-Sandeman Movement),” he argues that the Glas-Sandeman, “emphasis on the restoration of New Testament teaching was not balanced with a concern for Christ unity” (North 1994). This movement was not “big tent” enough.
Another movement that influenced Thomas (and, in turn, his son Alexander), was the Haldane Movement. This movement came from the work of two brothers, James (1768-1851) and Robert 1764-1842) Haldane. These brothers started an independent church after being repulsed by the lack of missionary zeal from National Church of Scotland; Thomas “later became a member of this group and supported their endeavors to preach the simple New Testament Gospel throughout the land” (North 1994). James Haldane produced a book in 1805. He wanted churches to follow a New Testament model. The church was to measure her worship, beliefs, and practices against the apostolic witness and teaching.
North also points out that Thomas Campbell was philosophically influenced by English philosopher/author John Locke (1632-1704). D.A. Rausch notes that Locke is “often associated with early modern empiricism,” and he was a “staunch defender of free inquiry.” Locke did not embrace Platonism’s world of forms- rather Locke argued that we are all tabula rasa, and that humanity acquire knowledge via natural revelation. Locke’s assertions coupled nicely with the Sandemanian view of faith. Rauch calls Locke’s philosophy “a combination of Christian Rationalism and (British) empiricism” (D.A. Rausch 2001).
Locke opposed such things as man-made tradition, and certain doctrinal innovations. Even though Locke was not a Deist, per se, Rausch argues that “his philosophical and theological thoughts would provide a bridge to the natural religion of Deism” (D.A. Rausch 2001). Locke’s philosophy would influence Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington County. For example, Thomas Campbell wrote in the Declaration and Address:
…Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent (T. Campbell 1997).
North compares this to Locke’s “A Letter concerning toleration:”
…Nothing in worship or discipline can be necessary to Christian communion but what Christ our legislator, or the Apostles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have commanded in express words (Locke 1955).
Again, Campbell writes:
…Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so…” (T. Campbell 1997).
Campbell’s line of reason was perhaps lifted from Locke, who wrote:
… However clearly we may think this or the other doctrine to be deduced from Scripture, we ought not therefore to impose it upon others as a necessary article of faith because we believe it to be agreeable to the rule of faith…” (Locke 1955).
However, the Old World’s ecclesiastical boundaries were not left behind when Thomas hopped an ocean. The same disputes and divisions over doctrine followed him to the new world. This disturbed the elder Campbell enough to break with his chosen Presbyterian background and forge the so-called Christian Association of Washington County. One of the initial issues to plague the group: paedobaptism versus credobaptism. Who gets baptized- when, where, and how?
Robert Richardson, who was Alexander Campbell’s son-in-law, wrote The Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, in 1868. He gives a snapshot of where Thomas Campbell’s influences had taken him by this time, in the year 1811. Thomas Campbell had arrived in America, and broke from the fetters of Presbyterianism. Richardson states Thomas had:
…Become fully convinced that, on account of the continued hostility of the different parties, it was necessary that the Christian Association should assume the character of an independent Church, in order to the enjoyment of those privileges and the performance of those duties which belong to the Church relation. It was with great reluctance that he finally concluded to take this step, and to separate himself from those whom he desired to recognize as brethren. Such, nevertheless, is the usual fate of reformers. Religious reformations, however they may be aided or modified by external circumstances, must always originate within the Church itself…. The reformation urged by Thomas Campbell was no exception to the general rule (Richardson 1868).
North notes Thomas Campbell’s writing of the Declaration and Address… did not occur “in a vacuum,” rather both the writing of the Declaration and the separation described by Richardson occurred because of such influences as “the (Irish) Old Light Anti-burgher Seceders… as well as (Thomas Campbell’s) experiences (with) the (American) Chartier’s Presbytery.”
Richardson idealistically and romantically frames Thomas’ break with others and compares it to the mighty deeds of the magisterial reformers. Richardson informs us the formation of the Christian Association of Washington County:
…Commenced in a community claiming to be the purest portion of the Church, and, when proposed to its hierarchy, was rejected and denounced. Now, as before, the light shone in darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not. Hence a separation became inevitable, and this separation appeared not less grievous to the human feelings and sympathies of Thomas Campbell, than similar ones had done to those of other reformers, “He would have liked,” as D’Aubigné says of Calvin, “to see all the Church transformed, rather than set himself apart and build up a new one.” Having found it impossible, however, to effect this transformation, he felt it to be his duty to organize an independent community (ibid).”
Enter Alexander, who becomes ordained under his father within his Thomas’s new church, on 11 May, 1811. Alexander pursues union with the Baptists, beginning in 1815 (North 1994). Alexander, and his Brush Run Church, join the Redstone Baptist Association- but not without Baptist dissent. It is evident from the writings of Alexander Campbell that he liked the Baptist laypeople, but he disliked those who were Baptist ministers7.
However, there are key points where Alexander parted ways with the Baptists- even from the outset of this tenuous relationship. The Campbellite disparagement of creeds and confessions was distinct. They would not follow the early Baptist Confession known as the Philadelphia confession, insisting on following only the Bible… which sounds pretty pious on the surface.
But this made early Baptists suspicious of Campbell. North points out that by entering into a Baptist Association, “the Campbells now had an open entry into every Baptist church in the tri-state area of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia… Through this Baptist medium the Campbells hoped to influence a much larger group of people toward a return to New Testament Christianity” (North 1994).
Taken prima facie, this doesn’t sound all that insidious. However, Campbellism never accepted a confessional Baptist theology at all. Perhaps one of the biggest issues was that of baptism. Alexander Campbell eventually arrived at a view of baptism that is certainly contra Baptist theology. In 1823, Campbell debated the Presbyterian, W.L. Maccalla in Kentucky.
During the course of the debate, Campbell took as his text Acts 22:16, in which is Paul recounting his conversion. The verse, in part, states “…arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Campbell’s commentary on this phrase, “be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” definitely splits him from Baptist thought. Speaking of Paul, Campbell argued:
…His sins were now washed away, in some sense that they were not before…. Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins. Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression…. The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly “for the remission of sins.” The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins…. Paul’s sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism. To every believer therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation of sins. The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water has no efficacy but what God’s appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient for this purpose (A. Campbell 1842).
When you compare this to the Philadelphia confession, it is obvious that Alexander Campbell did not belong among the confessional Baptists. Chapter 30, paragraph one of the Philadelphia Confession states:
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.8
Contrary to the position of the Philadelphia Confession, which states baptism is an outward sign of what has already taken place within a professing, repentant believer, Campbell even further distanced himself from Baptists:
My Baptist brethren, as well as the Paedobaptist brotherhood… You have been, some of you no doubt, too diffident in asserting this grand import of baptism, in urging an immediate submission to this sacred and gracious ordinance, lest your brethren should say that you make everything of baptism; that you make it essential to salvation. Tell them that you make nothing essential to salvation but the blood of Christ, but that God has made baptism essential to their formal forgiveness in this life, to their admission into his kingdom on earth. Tell them, that God has made it essential to their happiness, that they should have a pledge on his part, in this life, an assurance in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, of their actual pardon, of the remission of all their sins, and that this assurance is baptism (A. Campbell 1842).
Baptists are not the only group to balk on Campbell’s views. Jerry Johnson applies the label “cult” to the Campbellite churches of today (Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and the independent Christian Churches). Johnson argues, “Though Restoration (Movement) churches do not add to the Bible with words, they do have a hermeneutic… that causes them to break continuity with the early church… This new method of interpretation was given to them primarily by Alexander Campbell…”9.
Johnson also points out, that the Restoration Movement churches are decidedly Pelagian in their soteriology- they do not embrace the scriptural idea of original sin. Maybe Campbell would be allowed back under the SBC big top, if he were around today. He would probably approve of Article three of the 2000 BFAM.
Johnson notes, “Most confuse the Restoration (Movement) teaching of baptism and mislabeled it ‘Baptismal regeneration.’ However, since they do not believe in original sin and that it is internal, to call their doctrine of baptism ‘regeneration’ is wrong. Their doctrine,” he argues, “is more properly called baptismal remission.”10
R.L. Dabney was another vocal critic of Campbellism. Dabney was a Southern theologian and author. In his Discussions, Dabney shoots down the central thinking of Campbell: “Mr. Campbell, misapplying the words of John 17:20-21, says that only 2 conditions are necessary for the conversion of the world, truth and union.”11 Campbell shouted down the creeds and confessions, believing the maxim of his father, “where the scriptures speak, we speak; where the scriptures are silent, we are silent.”12 This oft heard motto emerged from the Campbellite movement, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.”13
How can there be any union in truth when Campbellism has an unscriptural, Pelagian view of sin, a twisted view of baptism, and (as some Restoration Movement churches advance), salvation as the exclusive province of only their churches? How can there be union around a flawed hermeneutic around Campbell’s gross misinterpretations that depart from revealed truth of God’s Word?
North tells us the early Baptist response to the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Baptists, by the late 1820s, were kind enough to show Alexander Campbell to the door. Baptists also objected to Campbell’s view of the moral law of God. Campbell preached a Sermon on the Law. North reports that “this Sermon on the Law created quite a furor” (North 1994). It was offered up at the annual meeting of the Redstone Baptist Association, at Cross Creek, Virginia, in the year 1816. Campbell proclaimed: “There is no necessity for preaching the law in order to prepare men for receiving the gospel.”14.”
Compare this to Spurgeon’s 1882 sermon, titled, The Perpetuity of the Law of God:
I do not believe that any man can preach the gospel who does not preach the Law. Lower the Law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt; this is a very serious loss to the sinner rather than a gain; for it lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion. I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary… when you have set aside the Law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring men to Christ . . . They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy Law.15.
Compare Campbell’s Sermon on the Law with the Apostle Paul who wrote: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:19-20, KJV). In Galatians 3:24 (KJV), we read: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
“Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life,” argued Campbell in the Rice debate 16.
Despite this distaste for confessions and creeds, today’s postmodern Restoration Movement enthusiast is indeed confessional, much to his or her chagrin. When the devotee of Campbell cries, “No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible,” isn’t he or she ironically proclaiming a most anemic confession? Why not flesh that out with as much sound doctrine from the scripture as possible, and dutifully pack it all into the wonderful form of a written confession or statement of faith that others may read to see what you believe the Bible to be, and who you believe Christ to be? Which one would be more edifying?
B.H. Carroll (1843-1914) offered this witty and timely Baptist response to Campbell’s anti-creedal view:
A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry: “Less creed and more liberty,” is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy-it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly…. Again, I solemnly warn the reader against all who depreciate creeds, or who would reduce them to a minimum of entrance qualifications into the church.17
Where has this anti-confessional, history-spurning mindset led the postmodern Restoration Movement? Perhaps a recent newspaper article in The Currier-Journal may be a good indicator. Lexington Theological Seminary, which is “the oldest denominational seminary in the Indianapolis-based Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),” had to “(declare) a financial emergency due to a ‘tsunami of economic disasters’” (Smith 2009). What may have helped cause this tidal surge? Apologist Craig Branch reveals that the Disciples of Christ have lost 57.2% in this decade (Branch 2007). In order to deal with their budget problems, the seminary has pragmatically changed its mission:
The seminary will emphasize practical training for clergy in areas such as financial management, conflict resolution and the use of technology, Johnson said, rather than its current emphasis on theology and biblical studies, though that still will be in the curriculum (Smith 2009).
The mission has changed from a Biblical preaching to “practical training.” What can be more practical than pastors learning and teaching theology and sound doctrine- if faith comes by hearing… and the Bible is really your authority? However, the seminary’s solution was rationalism over revelation – putting Christian theology and church history second to learning new technology, finance, and de-escalation techniques. This is “just loving one another,” and “not quibbling over doctrine,” because after all, doctrine divides, right? It is hard to get everyone under that big tent (especially as it is collapsing).
Campbellism is one of the “ghosts” that still “haunts” the SBC; Dr. Timothy George asserts in, Southern Baptist Ghosts, “The results of this schism are with us still; it is not uncommon to find Baptist and “Christian” churches still facing one another across town squares and village lanes throughout Tennessee and Kentucky” (George 1999).
Even though Alexander Campbell eventually parted ways with the early American Baptist Camp, George notes:
When James Petigru Boyce founded the first theological seminary among Southern Baptists in 1859, he required every professor in that institution to sign an explicit statement of doctrine pledging to teach “in accordance with, and not contrary to” the beliefs stated therein. He observed, “Campbellism, though checked in every direction in which it attempted to develop itself, has left no little of its leaven among us and exerts no inconsiderable influence (George 1999).
The church cannot forget that it is the resurrected, victorious Christ who will maintain his church until he returns, despite how individual denominations, conventions, and movements decline. Christ has promised us this very thing. Both Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith failed at their attempted “restorations” of the church, and subsequent restorations have only created even more division – ironically, while Christ is still achieving his goal. Therefore, sound doctrine, confessional preaching, and church history are sufficient to counteract this big tent mentality. They all work to point toward the eventual decline and fall of the big tent. We must constantly reform around Christ and His Gospel instead of trying to restore.
Southern Baptists must see at least some parallels to the historical trajectory of The Restoration Movement. They must understand how this desire to pitch a big tent in the name of unity will only end in more doctrinal confusion and disintegration. You cannot have orthopraxy without orthodoxy, in short, theology still matters. The church will continue on to the end of the age through the power of the Holy Spirit while some hastily erected man-made tents will get blown down by Zeitgeist.
Tom A. Barnes is pastor of New Covenant Reformed Baptist Church in Waco, Kentucky.
1. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)
2. Ruth A. Tucker, Another Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 93-117
3. D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 1995)
4. http://mormon.org/restoration/ [accessed 3 September 2011]
5. C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons of Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, (New York: Sheldon and Company, 1865), 134.
6. History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
7. Millennial Harbinger, 1848, 345, 347
8. Philadelphia Confession, http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/phila.htm#29 (accessed 10 October 2011).
9. Jerry Johnson, “Why Are Restoration Churches Classified as a Cult?,” in “The Marks of a Cult: A Biblical Analysis, Study Guide, (Draper, Nicene Council Curriculum, 2006).
10. IBID
11. R.L. Dabney, The System of Alexander Campbell, in Southern Presbyterian Review, July 1880.
12. Richardson, Vol. 1, 236
13. Source unknown, but common to churches in the Stone-Campbell Movement. Fully rendered, it is “We have no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the Divine.”
14. Reprinted by A. Campbell in The Millennial Harbinger, 1846
15. C.H. Spurgeon, The Perpetuity of the Law of God, sermon 1660, 1882; available online http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols28-30/chs1660.pdf (accessed 10 October 2011).
16. N.R. Kehn and and Scott Bayles, Restoring the Restoration Movement (Xulon Press, 2009)
17. Quoted by Reisinger, http://www.founders.org/journal/fj26/article2.html,(accessed 10 October 2011)
1. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)
2. Ruth A. Tucker, Another Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 93-117
3. D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers, 1995)
4. http://mormon.org/restoration/ [accessed 3 September 2011]
5. C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons of Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, (New York: Sheldon and Company, 1865), 134.
6. History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
7. Millennial Harbinger, 1848, 345, 347
8. Philadelphia Confession, http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/phila.htm#29 (accessed 10 October 2011).
9. Jerry Johnson, “Why Are Restoration Churches Classified as a Cult?,” in “The Marks of a Cult: A Biblical Analysis, Study Guide, (Draper, Nicene Council Curriculum, 2006).
10. IBID
11. R.L. Dabney, The System of Alexander Campbell, in Southern Presbyterian Review, July 1880.
12. Richardson, Vol. 1, 236
13. Source unknown, but common to churches in the Stone-Campbell Movement. Fully rendered, it is “We have no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the Divine.”
14. Reprinted by A. Campbell in The Millennial Harbinger, 1846
15. C.H. Spurgeon, The Perpetuity of the Law of God, sermon 1660, 1882; available online http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols28-30/chs1660.pdf (accessed 10 October 2011).
16. N.R. Kehn and and Scott Bayles, Restoring the Restoration Movement (Xulon Press, 2009)
17. Quoted by Reisinger, http://www.founders.org/journal/fj26/article2.html,(accessed 10 October 2011)
Works Cited
Branch, Craig. Troublesome Movements in the 21st Century. May – June 2007. http://www.arcapologetics.org/veritas/veritas-2007-05.htm (accessed October 2011, 2011).
Burleson, Wade. wadeburleson.org . October 23, 2006. http://www.wadeburleson.org/2006/10/inspired-inerrant-infallible-bible-is_24.html (accessed October 1, 2011).
Campbell, Alexander. A Public Debate on Christian Baptism, Between the Rev. W. L. Maccalla, A Presbyterian Teacher, and Alexander Campbell. London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1842.
Campbell, Thomas. Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington. 1997. http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/tcampbell/da/DA-1ST.HTM (accessed October 1, 2011).
D.A. Rausch, “John Lock,”. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
George, Timothy. Southern Baptist Ghosts. May 1999. http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9905/articles/george.html (accessed October 10, 2011).
Locke, John. A Letter concerning Toleration. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1955.
North, James B. Union In Truth: An Interpretive History of the Restoration Movement. Cincinatti: Standard Publishing, 1994.
Richardson, Robert. The Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and Company, 1868.
Smietana, Bob. Nation’s largest Protestant group faces ‘decline’. June 6, 2011. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-06-12-baptisms_11_ST_N.htm (accessed July 6, 2013).
Smith, Peter. Courier-Journal. January 14, 2009. http://www.lextheo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ltsfacescrisis.pdf (accessed October 2011, 2011).
[Editor’s note: Original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]
Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.