A Movement of Leaders and Leadership Development

By John D. McArthur, Jr.

How were leaders developed in the early days of the Restoration Movement?  

Before the 1930s, conventional wisdom held that people were simply born with the ability to lead. There wasn’t a perceived need to develop leaders because either you were born a leader, or you were not. Therefore, in the early days of the Restoration Movement, leadership development (as we know it today) was not really a concern.  

The main concern the early fathers of the Restoration Movement had was whether their leaders taught correct doctrine. Most of the writing and teaching we have from the early days of the Movement focuses on correct theology and proper hermeneutics rather than leadership. However, this does not mean leadership development did not happen.  

The founding fathers of the Restoration Movement would have believed what a contemporary leader and president of the United States, John Quincy Adams, said: “If your actions inspire others to dream more, do more, and become more, you are a leader!”  

The practicing and teaching of the tenets of the Restoration Movement caused people to dream more, do more, and become more, so whether they knew it or not, people became leaders who led churches out of denominationalism and brought seekers into a relationship with Christ that was free from the baggage of creeds and traditions. 

Teaching the Bible Only  

A primary tenet of the Restoration Movement was to teach the Bible only. This teaching could be better labeled, “spiritual development.” So, in a very real sense, spiritual development became the process by which leaders were developed in the early years of the Restoration Movement. Fellow sojourners would spur one another on as they searched for truth. 

The idea that leaders were born and not made became known as the Great Man Theory in 1927. Although there were always skeptics of the philosophy that one had no choice in being a leader, it was not until the early 20^th century that social scientists began seriously studying and researching to see if leadership could actually be taught. As a set of common characteristics shared by all leaders was developed, so did the idea that one could become a leader by learning and practicing these characteristics. This study of the common characteristics shared by leaders is known as Trait Theory. 

Perhaps without realizing it, the followers of Campbell were practicing Trait Theory long before social scientists developed the concept. Early on, preachers wanting to emulate Alexander Campbell began to mimic his style of preaching, which included standing still (maybe while leaning on a cane) and reading from a manuscript. Things Campbell considered important, such as education, led to the founding of many preacher-training colleges. In addition, journals and books became the “social media” churches used to further educate and bind our separate and independent minded churches together. Without realizing it, leaders were being developed as they absorbed the theology of the early Restoration founders. 

Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and other founding fathers of the Restoration Movement were also ahead of their time in rejecting the Great Man Theory. Campbell’s insistence of having no clergy-laity distinction did more than break down ecclesiastical walls. Since anyone could preach, leadership roles in the church opened up and everyone who wished to lead could start leading within certain parameters.  

As long as the new leaders towed the party line, everything was fine; but this adherence to orthodoxy stifled creativity and the freedom to do things differently. In a 1992 Restoration Quarterly article, John Wilson wrote, our “theology of leadership is at least influenced if not determined by ecclesiology.” 

A Preaching President 

Much of the church polity advocated in the early days of the Restoration Movement, although not completely unique, was refreshing and freeing. It prevented any one person from becoming too powerful. And even though it prevented an authoritarian dictatorship and perhaps corruption, it also stifled congregational and leadership growth. One of the reasons James A. Garfield, the 20^th president of the United States and a Restoration Movement preacher, did not go into ministry was because he did not want to rely on the “tender mercies” of churches to support him. While the primary reason was financial, Garfield also believed that his leadership skills would not be used as a preacher, and he would be at the mercy of the congregation. 

In the early days of the Restoration Movement, preachers were not formally trained or ordained into ministry. Rather, if a person felt he had something to share with the church, he was encouraged to preach or teach while deriving his income from some other source. In fact, when Campbell started Bethany College, it was to teach preachers Scripture while encouraging them to earn a living through other means. 

While considering if he wanted to become a full-time preacher, Garfield made a pilgrimage to Bethany College in Virginia (now West Virginia) and met with Alexander Campbell, staying with him for a couple of days while he visited the campus and considered enrolling. Although there were a few things about the atmosphere of the school he was uncomfortable with, he really wanted to sit at the feet of Campbell and learn from this great man. However, Campbell discouraged young James from enrolling because he didn’t feel Bethany could offer him more knowledge than he had. 

Campbell looked at Garfield from the perspective of what he knew about Scripture, not from any leadership skills he might have or could develop. It did not matter if you could lead; it mattered whether you knew how to preach the Word of God. In fact, as recently as 1992, John Wilson wrote an article in Restoration Quarterly about the leadership crisis in the Churches of Christ, noting how the churches lacked leadership because they refused to allow anyone to have that authority.  

However, the lack of a formal philosophy of leadership development does not mean leadership wasn’t developed in our churches in the early days. It just went by a different name and was more informal and less intentional. 

Pauls and Timothies 

It was common for preachers to find and develop “Timothies” from their congregations. Based on the example of Paul taking the young Timothy under his wing to teach and guide, preachers would find one or more young men, help them learn how to preach, and teach them how congregations work. Like Paul, the preachers would give their Timothies the opportunity to teach and work with the people in a congregation. There was no graduation from this course as the Timothy would always be under the watchful eye of his mentor. 

One example of a Timothy from the early days of the Restoration Movement is John Rogers, who was mentored by Barton W. Stone. As a young man, Rogers became an indentured apprentice to a cabinet maker in Kentucky. While there, he met Stone, who was much older and whom Rogers described as an “especially venerated and devoted friend and brother.” 

After his baptism at the age of 18, Rogers’s brother came to visit. Stone decided Rogers was ready and should return with his brother to Ohio. The church raised enough money to free him from his indenture and on the way to Ohio, he preached his first sermon. Over the next year or so, Rogers went on two “missionary journeys” preaching the gospel in small towns throughout Ohio. He then returned to Kentucky to attend school in Georgetown where he was reunited with and taught by Barton W. Stone. 

After school, Rogers was ordained to the ministry and his certificate includes the signature of Stone. For the rest of his life, he continued to preach and write, becoming a well-known and respected leader in the Restoration Movement. He also edited and published the autobiography of Barton W. Stone in 1847. 

Times change and methods change, so what worked in the early 19^th century might not work today. Indeed, the morphing of the schools and journals of the 1800s into what they became in the 20^th century was good for the times, but they are morphing again. No matter how the tools change, the principles of leadership development as practiced in the early days are still valid and deserve another look.  

First, the emphasis on spiritual development or the teaching of theology and doctrine is essential. Our colleges and journals did an excellent job of this throughout the 20^th century, but times are changing. Although training schools and written records will continue to be important, we need to be aware of and find new ways to do it. 

Second, leadership development works well in a smaller, one-on-one setting. The “Timothy” model gives accountability to students and allows teachers to pass on the legacy they have built.  

Mark Hopkins was both the president and a teacher at Williams College (Williamstown, Massachusetts) when the future president, James A. Garfield, was a student there. At one instance, Garfield defined an ideal college education as “Mark Hopkins on one end of a log and a student on the other.” That certainly summarizes the Timothy model of leadership development and could be a good model for us today. We need leaders who will invest time and energy into people who will lead. 

John D. McArthur, Jr. is minister of Sterling Park Christian Church, Sterling, Virginia, and author of James A. Garfield: Letting His Light Shine, available at Amazon.