Learning from Our Restoration History—and the Civil War—How to Fight Well
By Steve Carr
An adage suggests there are three subjects one should not bring up in public conversation: sex, religion, and politics. In this article, I throw caution to the wind and bring up all three, while pursuing how political issues have impacted the Restoration Movement.
One of the mottoes of our movement is, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, love.” In the traditional understanding of this proverb, nonessentials refers to those extra-biblical topics not specifically mentioned in Scripture. While politics would seem to fit in this category, there are often inconsistencies between theory and practice.
To best understand this, let’s examine the most traumatic event in our country’s existence: the Civil War. The events from 1861 to 1865 were the bloodiest in American history, blurred the lines between faith and politics, and tore our brotherhood apart.
Defining the Dispute
In the mid-19th century, the United States was deeply divided, with battle lines drawn along geographic borders. Not only did the issue of slavery separate North and South, but sociological differences also divided them. During that era, the economy of the Northern states was primarily based upon manufacturing and finance, while the Southern states’ economy was dominated by agriculture. The North was mostly a society of established cities, while Southern culture was predominantly rural. Additionally, citizens in the Northern states tended to be more educated and affluent than their Southern counterparts.
The cultural divide between North and South was just as evident in the Restoration Movement. By the mid-1800s, there were approximately 200,000 American believers who identified with the cause of New Testament restoration, with the majority of them living in Border States. Ideologically, these Christians approached their faith differently. Northern churches in the movement (in the tradition of Alexander Campbell) held a more intellectual approach to Christianity. Southern churches, on the other hand, held a frontiersman view of their faith (much like Barton Stone).
Further contributing to the divide was that Northern congregations began doing things never before seen in our fellowship: They employed paid ministers, created missionary societies, and used musical instruments in worship. Church leaders in the South questioned the biblical rationale behind these practices, but Northerners didn’t care; if Southern churches couldn’t admit the wrongness of slavery, they reasoned, why entertain critiques concerning nonessential practices?
This tension between Northern and Southern “restorationists” escalated as the nation approached Civil War. Perhaps in another era, these differences could have been resolved without conflict, but the tempest of the times made it nearly impossible to find peaceful solutions.
The Heart of Havoc
In October 1861, just six months after the Confederate Army’s firing upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, provoked the war, Restoration Movement leaders convened in Cincinnati. Representatives from both Northern and Border States attended (among them Alexander Campbell and future President James Garfield), but there were no representatives from Southern churches. Some Northerners even wore their Union Army uniforms to the convention.
In past conventions, attendees would vote on nonbinding resolutions. At this gathering, a resolution was proposed demanding Christian loyalty to the United States government; the goal here was to embarrass Southern Christians into repudiating the rebellion and rhetoric of Confederate politicians. Despite the war that was raging, the resolution failed. The resolution failed again when it was proposed at the 1862 convention. But the following year, when the anger of Northern Christians was at its peak, the loyalty resolution to the United States government finally passed.
Today, this resolution nonsense all seems trivial; the Restoration Movement is nondenominational, so loyalty resolutions carry no authority. But in that time, it linked the political conflict to the practice of faith. The resolution’s impact had tremendous reach over the following decades. Southern restorationists felt alienated, as if their Northern counterparts considered them to be less than Christian.
What the resolution never considered is the burden the conflict placed upon Southern believers. This is best illustrated in the life of Southern Restoration Movement leader David Lipscomb (for whom the Christian college in Nashville is named). During the Civil War, Lipscomb’s wife gave birth to a child. A Union blockade prevented the family from getting the boy to a doctor, and, sadly, he died of a treatable illness. While grieving their child’s death, the Lipscombs had to seek permission from Northern soldiers to bury their son at their family cemetery.
In terms of divisiveness, the Civil War makes many of our present-day conflicts appear insignificant. The clash exacted an emotional toll that affected citizens not even involved in the conflict.
Consequences of the Conflict
Just one year after the Civil War ended, editor Moses Lard optimistically wrote of the Restoration Movement, “On scriptural grounds we never can divide; on unscriptural, we never will.” What Lard seemingly underestimated was how the political would eventually be indiscernible from the theological.
Since the majority of combat in the Civil War took place in the South, much of the region’s infrastructure was destroyed, including houses of worship. Southern congregations struggled to rebuild their buildings due to lack of resources. While grappling with great loss, they were unable to reestablish their rhythm of faith.
Yet the Northern churches flourished. They seemingly flaunted their wealth by constructing new buildings. While the Southern churches couldn’t afford to replace their roofs, Northern churches installed extravagant pipe organs in their sanctuaries. Generally, they felt no pity for their Southern brothers and sisters; they stood behind the principles of their loyalty resolution, believing this was the South’s punishment for rebellion against the Union.
Southern restorationists critiqued the excess of their Northern brothers and sisters in scriptural terms. This is most evident in the North’s use of musical instruments in worship. Church leaders in the South observed that the Bible was silent on whether this was permissible, thus music instruments were not to be used in services. Not only was installing expensive pipe organs in church buildings poor stewardship, they reasoned, it was sinful.
In 1889, continued fighting between these sides culminated when a group of Southern church leaders passed a resolution of their own. They condemned the Northern practices of full-time ministers, missionary societies, and musical instruments as unbiblical and urged disfellowship with anyone who disagreed.
What appeared to be a theological schism was undoubtedly rooted in political ideology.
Flexing Our Flaws
Admittedly, some historians disagree with this interpretation of the split over instruments. But rather than argue the past, we should consider these incidents to determine how they could affect our future. For those of us struggling to process the divisiveness of our times, we can learn from the horrors of the Civil War. The political conflict spurred theological arguments.
This illuminates dark truth about our tribe: The Restoration Movement would rather fight than live at peace. Eventhough we desire to be “people of the book,” there are times when we’re more passionate about our rhetoric; we’re a unity movement always ready to rumble.
This is more than mere conjecture. Consider this: Some of the greatest events in the history of our fellowship are debates. Debating isn’t necessarily wrong. It allows us to stand up for what we believe is right and decry what we believe is wrong. But debating is rarely productive. In these arguments, we’re called to simplify layered issues in order to draw conclusions quickly. While this satisfies our sense of urgency, the outcome is almost always increased divisiveness. Unfortunately, debates generally lead to parties becoming further entrenched in their preexisting beliefs. Debating often dismisses the intricacies of the kingdom of God.
Historically, the Restoration Movement’s pursuit of primitive Christianity has left us hesitant to acknowledge the complexities of our world. The Civil War and its unspeakable atrocities remind us that seeking a simple faith doesn’t eliminate the tough questions of life. We can debate these issues at great length, but the common denominator is always flawed participants. Yes, including ourselves.
Still, we opt to fight, arguing our points passionately, unwilling to concede ground. We desire unity, but we want it on our terms.
The Secret of Submission
You may be curious what sex has to do with any of this. Maybe that’s why you kept reading.
When I think of divisiveness, I often think of marriage counseling. As an ordained minister, I still perform a few weddings every year. When I meet with couples, I recommend that they schedule appointments with a licensed counselor to talk about their relationship. I’ve had a few graduate courses in counseling, so I could potentially do it myself, but I’d rather a professional help them navigate through the more intimate issues of marriage.
Generally, I don’t want to talk to them about sex.
Even though marital counseling covers issues of intimacy, I’ve observed that there’s an even more important topic. When speaking with engaged couples about their relationship, I always ask how they fight. One of the most critical aspects of a healthy married life is knowing how to fight well—specifically, how to express your true feelings while protecting respect in your marriage. It’s not about avoiding arguments; conflict in marriage is inevitable. The key is to keep divisiveness from derailing the entire relationship.
Scriptures teach that this is obtained by lowering ourselves and adopting a posture of submission. It’s valuable for our marriages. It’s just as valuable as we engage our brothers and sisters in extrabiblical issues. Being submissive doesn’t mean we are apathetic or sacrifice our beliefs in the process. Rather, it means we behave like Jesus (as described in Philippians 2) and consider others as better or more important than ourselves.
I’m not convinced the Restoration Movement ever learned how to fight well. Disagreements in our tribe are rarely conducted in a constructive manner; in fact, they tend to turn venomous all too quickly. Even if our arguments are over biblical issues, we are called to take a biblical disposition when making our case. It’s about time we learned to live at peace.
This should be true whether it involves couples trying to establish a healthy relationship or Christian leaders trying to elevate the Word of God. Whether it involves elders versus ministers, instruments versus voices, or Democrats versus Republicans, we all should take seriously the apostle Paul’s command in Ephesians 5:21 to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Steve Carr serves as vice president of ministry development with CDF Capital. His free curriculum on the Restoration Movement is available at houseofcarr.com/movement.
0 Comments