The Restoration Movement emerged from a collective belief that Jesus’ prayer in John 17 called for obedience rather than admiration. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell thought that Christian division was not only bad, but also morally wrong. Jesus asked God to make his followers one so that the world would believe, and they did. For them, unity was not optional, spiritualized, or put off until heaven. It was a command given to the church in the past. So, restoration didn’t start as an experiment; it started as an act of submission. There was a cost to that submission from the start; it took guts to call division disobedience instead of something that had to happen.
The Restoration belief was never that the Bible answers every question completely. Instead, it was that the Bible is clear enough on important issues of faith, obedience, and fellowship.
Stone’s instincts were influenced more by spiritual chaos than by systematic reform. The Cane Ridge Revival of 1801 showed that American Christianity has two sides. This led to a lot of people converting, too much emotion, and the breakdown of the church. Stone did not assert that Scripture was ambiguous; instead, he contended that human systems often contradicted its unifying principles. Revival could bring people back to life, but it couldn’t fix a church that was determined to keep its borders safe. He learned that creeds weren’t just neutral summaries of faith; they were also tools that could be wielded to keep people apart. Tightening control won’t bring people together, something which requires repentance and humility in the presence of the Bible.
“The Restoration belief was never that the Bible answers every question completely. Instead, it was that the Bible is clear enough on important issues of faith, obedience, and fellowship.”
In 1804, the Springfield Presbytery’s Last Will and Testament made that belief real. Stone and his colleagues did not disband their presbytery due to the inadequacies of Scripture; rather, they believed they had inadequately upheld Scripture. By giving up their own power, they showed faith in the Bible’s ability to be clear instead of doubt about it. The action was not hesitation; it was compliance. Restoration here meant getting rid of things that were unimportant to the Bible and which made it hard for people to get along. The dissolution didn’t weaken conviction; it showed it. They thought that only the Bible could bring the church together.
Alexander Campbell reached analogous conclusions through an alternative pathway. Stone was shaped by revival and break, while Campbell was shaped by disciplined study, public debate, and faith in the clarity of Scripture. Campbell’s conclusion at Brush Run that immersion was necessary for baptism was final and not temporary. It was a strong choice that came after a lot of reading of the New Testament.
The division that happened didn’t mean that restoration had failed; it was just the cost of following the rules. Restorationists never said that truth would come together right away. They said that if people followed it closely, it would bring them together in the end.
“Restorationists never said that truth would come together right away. They said that if people followed it closely, it would bring them together in the end.”
Because of this, it’s important to tell the difference between disagreement and sinful division. Restorationists have always said that the truth can break people apart before it brings them back together. Campbell made a difference between disagreement that comes from honest questioning and division that comes from people’s judgments about fellowship. One was painful but loyal, and the other was not. The movement was against division that was based on appeals to authority that the Bible itself did not support. Unity and truth were never enemies; they were two things that had to be done one after the other.
The joining of the Stone and Campbell movements in Lexington in 1832 is a good example of this idea in action. Unity was achieved not by abandoning truth, but by avoiding the absolutization of secondary differences. Stone toned down his apocalyptic ideas without rejecting them. While keeping things clear, Campbell limited system-building. Both thought that the Bible could keep the church together even if not everyone agreed on everything. The union did not signify theological fatigue, but rather theological forbearance. It showed faith that obedience could grow over time.
In this context, mission did not serve as a doctrinal arbiter. The Bible was still the only standard of truth. In The Millennial Harbinger, Campbell kept saying that success could not be used to measure faithfulness.
“The Bible was still the only standard of truth.”
But the mission showed that people weren’t following the rules that the Bible said were wrong. Mission did not question the truth of Scripture but rather interrogated its own fidelity in both essence and expression. When right doctrine made people arrogant, lonely, or look down on outsiders, it went against the gospel it said it was following. Mark Noll has said that early American Protestants thought the Bible was clear enough to change both the church and society. Restorationists felt the same way. 
This same way of looking at things must be used to understand the crisis over slavery. The failure was not due to the lack of clarity in Scripture, but rather the refusal of many to adhere to its moral imperatives. Richard Hughes and Douglas Foster have shown that people often used biblical authority in a selective and self-serving way. The moral failure did not arise from differing interpretations of Scripture, but from the unwillingness of many to comply with Scripture’s mandate for justice and love of neighbor. The fracture did not reveal the inadequacies of Scripture, but rather the limitations of moral courage. Restoration unity didn’t work here because it was too expensive to follow the Bible, not because it couldn’t speak.
This is the hardest part of the argument. If you believe in the Restoration tradition, the Bible is clear enough to bring the church together. The movement was based on the belief that it is. The question is whether you are willing to follow the Bible even if it means giving up comfort, power, or your good name. Obedience today still starts with not making anything a requirement for fellowship that the Bible does not require. Restoration never promised to make things easier. It promised to be responsible.
“The question is whether you are willing to follow the Bible even if it means giving up comfort, power, or your good name.”
So, the Restoration Movement declines where it started: with a command that has not yet been met. We still need unity, truth still binds us, and division is still a wound, not a virtue. Stone’s warning about systems that are too rigid and Campbell’s insistence on clear discipline still go hand in hand. Restoration is neither enduring self-doubt nor unwavering certainty. It is confident obedience that does not accept disobedience as a valid reason. John 17 still stands, not as an attack on the Bible, but as a call to a church that thinks the Bible can still be followed.
Suggested Reading
Barton W. Stone, The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery
Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address
Alexander Campbell, The Millennial Harbinger
Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith
Douglas A. Foster, The Story of Churches of Christ
Mark A. Noll, America’s God
Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement
For more from Tim, check out his blog HERE. Used by permission.
