One facet of Restoration History either forgotten or passed over in the retelling, is the improper concept of the nature of Christ’s church shared by so many great pioneers. Evidence of this misunderstanding is found in their writings and sermons preserved for posterity. These were godly men who sacrificed much for the cause of truth, yet, like the rest of us, were not infallible in their reasoning. While we can learn much from them, we must also recognize the seeds of sectarianism unintentionally woven into their message.

Nowhere is this incipient error found more clearly than in their early teaching on the subject of church cooperation. In the March 1835 issue of Alexander Campbell’s Millennial Harbinger, page 119, brother M. Winans, a frequent correspondent, wrote concerning the cooperative efforts of churches in Clinton and Green counties, Ohio. The churches involved had sent messengers to a meeting in the city of Wilmington, "for the purpose of selecting one or more evangelists, and appropriating for them a sustenance." The plan called for the evangelist to travel throughout their counties as an agent of the churches of Christ, preaching the gospel.

Brother Winans was disturbed because some questioned the scripturalness of the project. His charge against them is quite telling: "They so much fear that we will fall into some of the old sectarian tracks, that they would prefer idleness to the doing of anything." First, it’s important to note their recognition that this was a scheme borrowed from the sects, not based on solid Bible authority. And second, as is often the case when a good scriptural argument cannot be made, brother Winans ridicules those who object.

What’s of greater interest, however, is Alexander Campbell’s response to this letter. He stated that the thinking of those in opposition to cooperation efforts "must spring from a morbid sensibility, from a sort of mental or moral dyspepsia, of which they ought to be cured if possible." Such a retort is not surprising, considering that "church cooperation" was one of Campbell’s pet theories. He had been advocating such efforts in the Harbinger since 1831. Unfortunately, his proposals were built on the foundation of a sectarian conception of the Lord’s church.

Alexander Campbell viewed the universal church of Christ as the collectivity of all local churches everywhere, as seen in the following comments: "Cooperation among christian churches in all the affairs of the common salvation, is not only inscribed on every page of apostolic history, but is itself of the very essence of the christian institution. The kingdom of the Messiah is one and indivisible – one body and one spirit. The innumerable little communities (local churches) of which it is composed are but so many component parts of Christ’s body, all animated by his Spirit." Sounds eloquent, but it’s untrue.

If cooperative schemes among local churches were truly "inscribed on every page of apostolic history," why were Campbell and others at such a loss to produce the scriptures demonstrating such? Later in this same response to brother Winans, Campbell chides those seeking a biblical pattern for action by saying, "There is too much squeamishness about the manner of cooperation." Early on, Campbell had admitted the lack of a pattern, but concluded it was up to men to decide on one themselves. Here he echoes his only defense of the cooperation theory: "The only model that could be given, is that the first churches in Judea, Samaria, Galatia, etc., etc., did all they could in the way of sending out and supporting those who labored in the gospel among the heathen, and that they did it in the best manner they could." Of course, no one ever argued with that.

The argument lay in Campbell’s assumption that these churches somehow pooled their efforts and finances, as he was currently suggesting. His "authority" was purely speculative. Follow his reasoning: 1) The church of Christ is made up of member congregations that are constitutionally one. He referred to this as the "divine institution." 2) The church of Christ, monolithic body that it is, is given the responsibility of evangelism, which is too great for a single congregation to fulfill. 3) The church, with all its congregations, is responsible to devise the ways and means of discharging the task of evangelism throughout the world.

Alexander Campbell’s speculations were compounded by his misunderstanding of what constitutes the body of Christ. The church of Jesus is not made up of churches, but individuals saved by the blood of the Lamb. One is not assured of his place in the body of Christ simply by being identified with a local church. Indeed, he joins himself to – and is accepted into – a local church because he has, presumably, already been added to the body of Christ through obedience to the gospel. And to further complicate matters, Campbell understood the work of a local church to be the work of the church universal. But there’s the rub. The church universal has no collective work to discharge, save that each disciple is to be a worker in the kingdom. Neither does the universal body of Christ have any human organization for carrying out such work! Christ, alone, is the Head (Eph. 1:22). God has ordained that local churches be organized with elders and deacons, in order to carry out their work locally. But any attempt to organize the church universal, which is precisely what Campbell insisted upon, is presumptuous and serves to make a religious body just another denomination.

Where, then, has such thinking led? In Campbell’s day, his sectarian doctrine of church cooperation led to the division of brethren: the very thing he purported to hate most. The formation of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 was more than many brethren could tolerate. Most of them seemed to accept Campbell’s errant view of the church being comprised of member congregations, and the principle of church cooperation; yet they feared the formal organization of a society as the first step back to the denominationalism they had left earlier - and they were correct. Years later when the Christian Church denomination was officially founded, much of the ecclesiastical hierarchy was already in place. This wasn’t what Alexander Campbell wanted, but it was the natural outcome of his teachings, nevertheless.

Brethren in our generation have still not outgrown this misconception of the church. We often speak of the "church splitting" over the Missionary Society and instrumental music. That expression is only accurate if the Lord’s church is, indeed, a conglomeration of local churches as Campbell taught. But the church of Jesus Christ is nothing of the sort. It’s not a physical body at all, but a spiritual body comprised of all the saved individuals of all the earth throughout all ages. With Christ as its Head, mere men have neither the control nor the ability to "split" it at all. Christ, alone, determines who is added or subtracted. What we ought to say, instead, is that local churches split and that brethren were divided, but the universal body of Christ remains intact with Christ at the helm.

This misconception planted by Campbell and watered by countless others, raised its ugly head again in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s as brethren battled over institutionalism. Traditionally, men knew they should oppose the Missionary Society (although many could not have explained why), but still accepted Alexander Campbell’s corporate view of the church, and the need for cooperative church efforts.

Back in 1836, brother T. M. Henley began writing to the Millennial Harbinger, expressing concern that Campbell’s cooperation proposals were similar to how the Baptist associations had been started years earlier in Virginia. As an alternative, Henley proposed that church cooperative efforts be channeled through a single local church instead of creating a separate organization. In other words, Henley suggested that all churches wishing to participate in a project send their funds to a single church, allowing that eldership to oversee the work for all the churches involved. This is what brethren today call the "sponsoring church" plan.

The problem, however, is that Henley’s proposal was no more scriptural than Campbell’s! Both were without biblical authority, and both were built on the same errors: 1) A misconception of what makes up the body of Christ; 2) The view that local churches are tied to each other organizationally; and 3) The view that the universal church has been given collective responsibilities to discharge. It’s often difficult to reason with younger brethren reared in the institutional tradition, simply because they have no fundamental concept of the nature of the Lord’s church. They are often more zealous to defend their "Restoration Heritage" than to cite book, chapter, and verse.

But what of non-institutional brethren; are we more clear minded than they? Not necessarily. When our brethren speak of local churches being in fellowship with each other, or we hear of one local church "withdrawing fellowship" from another, something is seriously wrong. Except for the need of emergency benevolence (Acts 11:27-30), in what sense can one local church possibly "extend fellowship" to another? We’ve cheapened "fellowship" from it’s noble definition of "active, joint-participation," to simply mean "endorsement" or "agreement." In many cases, the decision neither to announce nor attend the gospel meeting of another local church may be more childish than scriptural. But what’s the source of all this misunderstanding? It’s the doctrine of Alexander Campbell and others, that "the church" is comprised of all local churches. Therefore, we feel the need to define who is "in" and "out" of our collectivity in order to "keep the church pure." This, brethren, is the essence of sectarianism: to define spiritual soundness on the basis of group-identity, rather than one’s personal relationship to the Lord.

Often, preachers are the most influential purveyors of this sectarian error. Through a genuine, albeit misguided zeal for truth, some have set themselves to the task of delineating "sound" and "unsound" churches on the basis of the doctrine-de-jour. The particular issue may actually change from week to week, it seems. IT IS NEVER WRONG TO OPPOSE ERROR; but to oppose error with a view of defining a religious body of churches as "the one true church" can never be right, and is based on a false concept of the body of Christ. Probably no one pursues such an end consciously, but that often seems to be the net result.

Brethren, let us flee the sectarianism of non-sectarian Christianity. Let us be simple disciples of Christ, belonging to His universal body, and joined to local churches wherein we work together for the cause of truth. That should be enough to keep all of us busy.

986 Honeysuckle Road
Dothan, AL 36305
sdewhirst@aol.com

back