Johnson University

Congregational Autonomy and the SCM

Exploring its Bases and its Effects

Matthew J. Morhart

HIST 4200 History of the Restoration Movement

Dr. Shawn Grant

June 26, 2020

 Morhart 2

Introduction

This paper will seek to explore the basis of the Stone-Campbell Movement’s (SCM)

emphasis on the autonomy of the local fellowship and seek to answer the question of how this

emphasis affected the movement’s development. Exploration of both primary and secondary

sources will reveal that the founders of the SCM movement understood congregational autonomy

at the local level to be based on New Testament faith and practice. By tracing the role of local

congregational autonomy through the history of the SCM, we will discover that this emphasis

has been the hidden catalyst of the large majority (if not all) of the many divisions that have

occurred within “the unity movement.”

The Founding Fathers

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve

the political bands which have connected them with another… a decent respect to the opinions of

mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”

(Declaration para 1). These words from America’s founding fathers embody the spirit of the

founders of the SCM. Just like the American people felt the time had come to break away from

the “absolute Tyranny” of England, the SCM “founding fathers” also saw their separation as

essential to the sustaining of the New Testament church. In fact, Elias Smith laid the blame for

the American people’s ignorance of what religious liberty truly was at the feet of King George

(Smith 1-2)!

This connection between breaking from a denomination and the founding of American

democracy is attested to by Helsabeck, Holloway, and Foster who point to America’s break with

England and their subsequent refusal to establish a state religion (hence the separation of church

and state) as the reason “no one denomination could be the church of America” (21). It’s for
 Morhart 3

these reasons that Keith Huey refers to the SCM as “a quintessentially American phenomenon”

(2166).

From the very beginning, the “charter document” of the SCM, the Declaration and

Address (Blowers and Richardson 263), issued a clarion call for “liberty,” as evidenced by

Campbell’s following words:

“We are persuaded that it is high time for us not only to think, but also to act for

ourselves; to see with our own eyes, and to take all our measures directly and

immediately from the Divine Standard; to this alone we feel ourselves divinely bound to

be conformed…every man must be allowed to judge for himself” (Campbell 3).

SCM’s Definition of Church

In their writings, founding fathers of the SCM, like Thomas Campbell and Rice Haggard,

defined “the church” as the universal church of Christ (the body of Christ). In speaking of the

church, Rice Haggard stated, “that all Christians ought to be members of one church,” and that

all should “profess one religion” (Haggard 2). In very much the same vein, Thomas Campbell, in

the Declaration and Address, wrote that, “the church of Christ upon earth is essentially,

intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their

faith in Christ…” (Campbell 16).

This “universal” definition of church was the goal that Campbell and his associates of the

SCM constantly strove to realize—as evidenced in the Last Will and Testament of Springfield

Presbytery where Barton Stone and others desired for their presbytery to “die, be dissolved, and

sink into union with the body of Christ at large” (Foster 755). Campbell did acknowledge in the

Declaration and Address that “the church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in

particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another” (Campbell 16). However, as
 Morhart 4

can be seen via the evolution of the Christian Association of Washington, as Campbell was faced

with the desire to see the movement spread (which included his understanding of NT

“restoration”), his emphasis on the local church tended to strengthen over time. Notice, that

although the stated modus operandi of the Christian Association was for it to function, not as a

church, but rather “a collaboration of voluntary advocates of church reformation” (Blowers and

Richardson 263), it wasn’t long until Campbell saw the need to turn the group into a church (the

Brush Run church). This was due to the lack of attention and interest given to the Declaration

and Address (McAllister 174).

This same drive for influence and acceptance would continue to shape the SCM’s

evolving definition of church through the centuries. During the “restructure” of the late 1960’s,

the Disciples began to shift from using the term “church” to refer to local autonomous bodies, to

using it in reference to the larger church structure—constituted of congregations, regions, and

general ministries (Williams, Foster, and Blowers 189).

Local Autonomous Congregations

Somewhere between the “universal” definition proposed by Campbell and Haggard and

the “institutional” one proposed by the modern Disciples, the belief in local autonomous

congregations became the prominent understanding of the church by SCM constituents.

Understanding why the SCM accepted the existence of local congregations requires an

understanding of their tripartite hermeneutic of “express terms, approved precedents, and

inferences” (Olbright “Hermeneutics” 387). Since the Scripture directly refers to “local”

churches in a variety of locations (e.g. Acts 8:1, 13:1; Rom. 16:5; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12; etc.), the

establishment of “local congregations” was considered a matter of approved precedent.

 Morhart 5

Lobbying for the autonomy of each local congregation stemmed from Campbell, Stone,

and the other “founding fathers’” reactions to established denominational hierarchies (e.g.

Campbell 14-15; Johnson and Stone 1; O’Kelly 249). Although some of the SCM’s early

leadership recognized the potential consequences of a clear rejection of conventional

denominational polity structure, their emphasis on “liberty” and “democratization” resulted in

“militant anticlericalism, resistance to older theological systems, redefinition of ecclesiastical

authority from the ground up, development of a populist religious culture (journalism et al.), and

the general articulation of a ‘theology of the people’” (Blowers 267)—in other words, a strong

focus on the autonomy of each local fellowship as dictated by the people.

Consequences of Autonomy

What were these “consequences” of a strong emphasis on local church autonomy that

some of the early leaders foretold? As one traces the history of “the unity movement,” one

recurring factor in both the major and minor divisions of the SCM movement becomes evident—

local church autonomy.

Small Divisions

From the very advent of the movement, local church autonomy resulted in certain

“divisions” among certain fellowships as some of the local fellowships chose to align themselves

with the SCM and others chose not to join the new movement. Viz the initial merger between the

Stone “Christians” and Campbell’s “Reformers,” where the merger “was not binding on the

constituent churches of either group” (Lee 656) and as a result, approximately half of the

“Christians” didn’t join in the merger (Olbright “Christian Connection” 190).

 Morhart 6

SCM history is littered with many small “divisions” over issues such as the legitimacy of

Sunday schools (circa 1907), the practice of having a single pastor serving a church (a.k.a.

“located pastors”) (circa 1900), and whether or not to use a single cup for the Communion

service (circa 1911) (Newell, Foster, and Blowers 160). While these were not considered major

divisions within the SCM, each of these individual issues resulted in hundreds of local

congregations choosing to distance themselves in practice and/or identification as a result. This

occurred as each local congregation exercised their autonomy in seeking to fulfill their quest for

New Testament Christianity.

Major Divisions
Division of 1906

Historians of the SCM acknowledge two major divisions within the movement. The first

major division was officially recognized in the 1906 Census of Religious Bodies (Newell et al.

84). The stated reasons for this division involved the difference in interpretation and application

on two key issues: the use of musical instruments in the worship service, and the acceptability of

mission societies (Newell et al. 79). While couched in hermeneutical arguments over whether or

not these “innovations” were acceptable from a biblical standpoint, modern historians have

stressed the socio-economic and sectional factors that were key to these divisions as well

(Newell et al. 84).

While not minimizing the recent research into the reasons behind the clearly North/South

division of the SCM (which was characteristic of the widespread denominational divisions of the

Civil War period [Newell et al. 44]), it is essential to look at primary sources to discover their

argumentation and reasons for the split. Tolbert Fanning argued that “the Church of Christ…is

the only divinely authorized Missionary, Bible, Sunday School, Temperance, and Co-operation
 Morhart 7

Society on earth” and that it was not expedient for societies to do the work of the church (2).

Daniel Sommer also spoke strongly against “man-made missionary societies” and the use of

instruments in worship (9, 12). Sommer went as far as to charge the “innovators” of being

“responsible for all the evils that now afflict us as a people in consequence of the introduction

among us of things unauthorized by the New Testament (18), Tolbert and Sommer were

representative of the opposition in the South on these principle issues in the division and we see

that both of them were concerned with the local church being relegated to a back seat in doing

God’s work. Mission societies in particular were a threat to local church autonomy, while the

conflict over musical instruments acted as a platform for each church to choose veritable and

visible sides on the division.

Division of the mid 1900’s

Although Cooperatives and Independents divided a variety issues such as liberalism,

higher criticism, federation, open membership, and centralized cooperation (Grant 00:06:00 –

00:07:00), once again, the underlying issue for this division had to do with how the acceptance of

open membership (whether via federation or cooperation) jeopardized the autonomy of the local

congregations. One clear evidence of this is seen in Robert Burns’ group and their demand for

the word “autonomy” to be included in the Provisional Design that had been put together by the

Commission on Restructure (Newell et al. 189). This demand was a reflection of previous

ongoing “Institutional Controversy” that began in the 1930’s where the Independent’s

forebearers feared “that the rise of church-supported institutions would destroy the spiritual

identity of the church” (Newell et al. 162).

Whereas the Cooperatives argued that “no part of the body of Christ can be autonomous”

(Newell et al. 189), the conservatives were concerned that the masterminds of the restructure
 Morhart 8

were seeking to establish a “vertical hierarchy or authoritarianism” and that “local church

autonomy would be sacrificed in the name of covenantal loyalty to denomination” (Newell et al.

197). Unable to bridge this divide, local autonomous congregations, in response to Christian

Standard editor, Burris Butler’s call to “Stand up and be counted,” began to officially withdraw

from the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and shortly thereafter, the division was realized

(Sloneker 103).

Conclusion

As Keith Huey notes in regard to the SCM’s pursuit of achieving unity via the restoration

of New Testament Christianity, “the first-century ‘pattern’ has been notoriously elusive and

reaching unanimous conclusions about the details has proven impossible” (Huey 2164). This

paper has sought to identify the somewhat catalytic effect that the SCM’s view of local church

autonomy had in the many divisions that have taken place within the movement. Christianity

unity truly is the quintessential essence of a living, vibrant church that is “following the steps of

Jesus” (John 17:21; 1 Peter 2:21). Unfortunately, the overall testimony of the church at large

hasn’t been very pristine in this regard, and the SCM is no exception. As Huey concludes in his

“critical assessment” of the SCM, “If this heritage is viewed as an attempt to restore first-century

Christianity, it can hardly be rated as a successful effort” (2165), and this author posits that an

overemphasis on local church autonomy is in measure responsible for this sorrowful, yet

veracious conclusion.
 Bibliography

Blowers, Paul M. “Democratization.” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Blowers, Paul M. and William J. Richardson. “Declaration and Address.” Encyclopedia of the

Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Campbell, Thomas. Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington [PDF

file]. Washington: Brown & Sample, 1809, 1-23.

Fanning, Tolbert. “Missions and Missionaries.” The Gospel Advocate [PDF file]. Vol. 3, No. 5.

May, 1857.

Foster, Douglas A. “Unity, Christian.” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Foster, Douglas A., Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams, eds. The

Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Grant, Shawn. Lecture Unit 18 The Unity Movement Divides Again [Presentation]. Retrieved

from https://sakai.lampschools.org

Haggard, Rice. “An Address to the Different Religious Societies on the Sacred Import of the

Christian Name” [PDF file]. Lexington: Joseph Charles, 1804, 15-17.

Helsabeck, W. Dennis Jr., Gary Holloway, and Douglas A. Foster. Renewal for Mission: A

Concise History of Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. Abilene: Abilene

Christian University Press, 2010.

Huey, Keith. “Stone-Campbell Movement.” Encyclopedia of Religion in America [PDF file].

Eds. Charles H. Lippy and Peter W. Williams. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011.

Lee, Gary L. “Rogers, John.” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2004.

McAllister, Lester G. “Christian Association of Washington.” Encyclopedia of the Stone-

Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

O’Kelly, James. “James O’Kelly’s Plan of Christian Union.” The Life of Rev. James O’Kelly

and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South. Ed. W.E. MacClenny.

Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton Printing Company, 1910, 248-53.

Olbright, Thomas H. “Christian Connection.” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

---. “Hermeneutics.” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2004.

Sloneker, Mark G. “Butler, Burris (1909-1982).” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell

Movement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Smith, Elias. “Address to the Public.” Herald of Gospel Liberty [PDF file]. Vol. 1, No. 1.

September 1, 1808.
Sommer, Daniel. “An Address.” Octographic Review [PDF file]. September 5, 1889.

Johnson, John T., and B.W. Stone. “Union of Christians.” Christian Messenger [PDF file]. Vol.

6, No. 1. January, 1832.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. e-Sword LT, version 7.5, Rick Meyers, 2017.

United States. National Archives and Records Administration. The Declaration of Independence.

May 29, 2020. June 19, 2020.

Williams, Newell D., Douglas A. Foster, and Paul M. Blowers. The Stone-Campbell Movement:

A Global History. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2013.