Leaven Leaven

Volume 7 Issue 4 Restoration Themes Article 4

1-1-1999

"Strict Constructionism" and "Loose Constructionism" in "Strict Constructionism" and "Loose Constructionism" in

Restoration History Restoration History

James B. North

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology

and Philosophy of Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation North, James B. (1999) ""Strict Constructionism" and "Loose Constructionism" in Restoration History," Leaven: Vol. 7 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol7/iss4/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Katrina.Gallardo@pepperdine.edu, anna.speth@pepperdine.edu, linhgavin.do@pepperdine.edu.

Restoration Themes 181

"Strict Construction"&

"Loose Construction".In

Restoration History

BY JAMES B. NORTH

The early days of the Restoration movement over-lapped the early formative years of the new Americanrepublic. Many were the influences of the latter thatshaped the development of 'the former. In the fourthproposition of his Declaration and Address, ThomasCampbell likened the authority of the New Testamentover the New Testament church to that of a constitu-tion. Since the Constitution had gone into effect in theUnited States only twenty years before Campbell pennedthose words, such imagery was vivid and compelling.The frontier of the first half of the nineteenth centurysprouted names for places that were borrowed from clas-sical history. Those areas still abound with such namesas Syracuse, Athens, Memphis, Argos, Sparta, Rome,and Utica.

This penchant for going back to the classical worldfor naming places is congruent with the concept of theRestoration movement-going back to the early modelof the New Testament church to discern the pattern ofchurch organization and activity that should guide thechurch in the present. Historians refer to this concept as"primitivism." The Restoration movement is not alonein its emphasis on such primitive attributes. Anabaptists,Mormons, Holiness groups, and others share this sameconcern.

All of this is one reason why the Restoration move-ment was so popular on the American frontier of theearly nineteenth century. It fit hand in glove with theideology that was so common in that place at that time.The movement to restore the church to its New Testa-ment model was part and parcel of the larger mindset

that wished to return to the simpler social and politicalframework of the early Greek democracies and the Ro-man republic. But the halcyon days of primitivist ide-alization were not to last forever. By the mid-nineteenthcentury, significant tensions had crept into therestorationist camp. It is easy to attribute those tensionsto a number of factors, all of which have their defend-ers. It is the position of this paper to suggest, however,that the tensions were another reflection of the ideo-logical mindset that gave birth to the movement in thefirst place. In 1809 Thomas Campbell stated the mottothat became all but definitive for the movement: "Wherethe Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scripturesare silent, we are silent.": That motto served the earlymovement well as the leaders focused on the necessityof biblical authority for the essentials of church doc-trine, practice, and organization. But by midcentury,numerous issues had come up that created a great dealof disturbance. One of the first such issues was the de-velopment of societies. In his early years as editor ofthe Christian Baptist, Alexander Campbell had stronglyattacked all "unauthorized societies" of the churches.'Campbell placed his article "The Christian Religion"as the very first article in the first issue of the ChristianBaptist. In talking of the early apostolic churches,Campbell declared:

Their churches were not fractured into missionarysocieties, Bible societies, education societies; nordid they dream of organizing such in the world ....They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or

1

North: "Strict Constructionism" and "Loose Constructionism" in Restorati

Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1999

182 Leaven, Fall, 1999

Bible society, or education society, a cent or aprayer, lest in so doing they should rob the churchof its glory and exalt the inventions of men abovethe wisdom of God. In their church capacity alonethey moved.'

This position became standard in the early days ofAlexander Campbell's leadership. When he endorsedthe creation of the American Christian Missionary So-ciety as well as the General Convention, both of whichformed in 1849, he was severely attacked by many breth-ren who were still committed to the position he had enun-ciated in 1823. The controversy over missionary soci-eties became one of the great debates that lasted fordecades.

The movement to restore the church to its

New Testament model was part and

parcel of the larger mindset that wished

to return to the simpler social and politi-

cal framework of the early Greek democ-

racies and the Roman republic.

A second issue had to do with paying the salary of afull-time preacher. On the frontier in the early days, suchdid not exist. The churches got along with part-timepreachers, weekend preachers, circuit riding preachers,or elders who simply filled the pulpit as needed. In 1831Alexander Campbell stated, "To employ men to preachthe gospel in a Christian congregation is a satire uponthat congregation which employs them.:"

By midcentury, however, the situation had changeddrastically, particularly in the larger towns. In the ruralareas farmers lived on a subsistence economy, and theirchurches had no money to pay salaries. But in the citiespeople were paid cash for their jobs, and they couldcontribute money to a church that could collect enoughto pay a minister's salary. Some rural congregations re-ferred to this as the "one-man pastor system," but by1850 the church at Eighth and Walnut in Cincinnati hadD. S. Burnet as its minister, and within a few years IsaacErrett was so employed by the church in Warren, Ohio.'The practice spread, even though the controversy con-tinued for additional decades.

These two issues were somewhat of the lead-in tothe major controversy that shook the Restoration move-ment in the last halfofthe nineteenth century. That is-sue was, of course. the use of musical instruments toaccompany congregational singing. It is probably notnecessary to detail here the background and develop-ment of the issue. Suffice it to say that the strife thatbegan at Midway, Kentucky, in 1859 soon reached epi-demic proportions. The come-outer spirit displayed inthe Sand Creek Declaration in 1889 and DavidLipscomb's willingness to secure a separate listing inthe U.S. Census in 1906 were only the frosting on thecake of ideological division that had been building overthe previous several decades.

These are three of the significant issues that cre-ated friction within the Restoration movement by thelatter half of the nineteenth century. It is the contentionof this paper, however, that these issues should not betreated separately, for they have a great deal in com-mon. All three are reflections of an ideological mindsetthat was rooted in the constitutional debates at the endof the previous century. The real issues here are parallelto the arguments raised in the late eighteenth centuryover how to interpret the new U.S. Constitution.

When the Constitution went into effect, everybodyin the country was willing to accept it as the new law ofthe land. But the political tensions between the "Hamil-tonians" and the "Jeffersonians" soon manifested them-selves in the polarity between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Both sides accepted the authority of theConstitution; that was never really in doubt. But thequestion was how the new Constitution was to be ap-plied.

The first hot issue was Hamilton's recommenda-tion to create a U.S. Bank. He could marshal very goodreasons why such a bank was necessary. It could re-ceive the surplus money from the national treasury. Itcould loan those funds out, thus keeping federal moneyin circulation and stimulating the economy; it could printpaper money based on those deposits, thus providing asound and stable national currency.

The Jeffersonians, however, were appalled at theprospect. Such a national bank would work against thestate banks that were then receiving excess federal in-come. It could become a monopoly that would crushthe independent state banks, which in turn could begin

2

Leaven, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 4, Art. 4

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol7/iss4/4

an erosion of state liberties overcome by the nationalfinancial control of the directors of such a bank.

When asked for his opinion on the bank issue,Jefferson wrote to President Washington that there wasno specific authorization in the Constitution for a na-tional bank. He argued that all powers not given to thefederal government were reserved to the states, as indi-cated in the Bill of Rights' Tenth Amendment, about tobe ratified at the time. Thus Jefferson argued for a "strictconstruction" of constitutional authority.

Hamilton, on the other hand, argued for a "looseconstruction," or a "broad" construction of the sameauthority. He argued that Congress was responsible fornational trade and money policy; therefore, a nationalbank was necessary to regulate the amount of money incirculation. Since the Constitution gave Congress thepower to regulate trade, it implied as well the power toset up a national bank as a means to accomplish theconstitutional end.

In essence, these were the same arguments used inthe controversial issues facing the Restoration move-ment. And appropriately so, for they reflected the sameideological presuppositions. Both sides in the Restora-tion movement agreed that the Bible (more specifically,the New Testament) was authoritative. The question wasthen how to interpret this constitutional authority. Shouldit be strict construction, or should it be loose construe-tion?"

In the arguments for organized societies, particu-larly missionary societies, one side contended that evan-gelism and missions certainly were the responsibilityof the church. If a missionary agency helped the churchto carry out its mission, then the authority for such anagency was "implied" in the basic missions directive tothe church. The other side countered with the observa-tion that the New Testament does not specifically au-thorize such an agency; therefore, creating such an or-ganization was going beyond the authority. Further, in-stituting something the scriptures did not authorize wascompromising the apostolic structure of the church bycreating religious agencies without authorization.

Similar arguments could be made on the issue of alocated minister and musical instruments in thechurches. One side said it was unauthorized; the othersaid it was allowed. Thomas Campbell, in PropositionThirteen of his Declaration and Address. had stated that

Restoration Themes 183

if anything "indispensably necessary to the observanceof Divine ordinances be not found upon the page ofexpress revelation," such could be adopted under thetitle of human expedients. Both sides could then quoteCampbell. One side could explain that the developmentsin question were allowable expedients; the other couldargue that they were not "indispensably necessary."

It was this mindset of strict versus loose construc-tion that led to the division between the ChristianChurch/Churches of Christ and the Churches of Christfellowships. Missionary societies, located preachers, andmusical instruments were not the cause. These were onlythe symptoms of the underlying mindset as to how tointerpret the New Testament-the constitution of thechurches.

It was this mindset of strict versus loose

construction that led to the division be-

tween the Christian Church/Churches of

Christ and the Churches of Christ fellow-

ships.

Neither was geography a cause in the ultimate divi-sion. It is true that prior to World War II (with its chang-ing migration patterns-many Southerners went Northor West to work in the factories producing airplanes,tanks, and other military equipment), most of theChurches of Christ were located in the former states ofthe Confederacy. But again, we should not confuse causeand effect. Churches of Christ were in the South be-cause that was where strict constructionism reigned instrength.

An interesting illustration of this is demonstratedin Edwin Scott Gaustad's book Historical Atlas oj Reli-gion in America.' Located in a folder at the back of thebook is a map based on the census returns of 1950. Thereligious preference of each county in the United Statesis color-coded. The Baptist churches represent a strongband across the South. Methodist churches, while hav-ing strong pockets in the South, also represent a wideband from Delaware to Kansas. Baptist churches arecommitted to local church autonomy; it should be nosurprise that they are strongly represented in those statesthat seceded from the Union to fight for states' rights.Methodist churches are governed by episcopacy; it

3

North: "Strict Constructionism" and "Loose Constructionism" in Restorati

Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1999

)84 Leaven, Fall, 1999

should be no surprise that they are strong in those statesthat fought to preserve the Union. Again, what this rep-resents is a strong congruence between political ideol-ogy and church governance. The mindset that polarizedbetween congregationalism and episcopacy also polar-ized between those fighting for secession and those fight-ing for union.

The thrust of this article has been to suggest thatthe mindset of strict and loose constructionism can helpus to understand many of the controversies that occurredin the history of the Restoration movement-certainly,the major controversies that resulted in the separationbetween the Churches of Christ and their instrumentalcounterparts. But this phenomenon is not limited to his-tory and the nineteenth century. The same dynamics andapplication are present today.

Numerous churches today are struggling with therecent development of having Saturday night services.Some argue hotly against it, stating that it is an erosionof the biblical pattern for worship on the first day of theweek. Others suggest that it is an expedient to reachmembers of current generations who do not operate insuch paradigms. Is this simply another instance oflooselstrict constructionism?

The arguments over women's role in the church canmirror the same polarity, as can the endless argumentsover styles of worship. We could also mention bus min-istry, radio ministry, television ministry, and church ath-letic teams. Perhaps these issues are not as hot today asthey were some years ago, but they fit the same pattern.The arguments over loose and strict constructionism arenot ended; they simply go from one new application toanother. An understanding of them may give us a fullerappreciation of the struggles in previous generations aswell as the patience to weather similar struggles in ourown day. Whether we accept the authority of our con-stitution is not the question; it is a matter of knowingwhich interpretation to use in applying that authority.

JUlES B. NORTH has served as Professor or ChurchHistory at San Jose Christian College and AcademicVice President or Cincinnati Christian Bible College& Seminary.

NotesI Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell

(Cincinnati: Standard, n.d.), 1:236.2 See W. E. Garrison and A. T. DeGroot, The Disciples of

Christ.' A History, rev. ed. (St. Louis: Bethany, 1958), 176,which borrows from Errett Gates, The Early History of Rela-tion and Separation of Baptists and Disciples (Chicago: Chris-tian Century, 1904),43-46.

3 Christian Baptist 1 (August 1823; reprint, Nashville:Gospel Advocate, 1955): 14.

4 Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger (1831): 237.5 Lester McAllister and William E. Tucker, Journey in

Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)(St. Louis: Bethany, 1975),243.

6 Over the process of several years of teaching the historyof the Restoration movement, I came to my understanding ofthe applicability of strict and loose construction. When I pre-sented this to the second Restoration Forum at Tulsa in 1985,I was surprised when a Church of Christ brother came up af-terwards and mentioned that a similar analysis had been pre-sented by the celebrated N. B. Hardeman in his publishedTabernacle Sermons. In volume 1 of this set I discovered hispresentation entitled "Federalists and Antifederalists"(Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons, 2d ed. [Nashville:McQuiddy, 1924], 1:76-87). Indeed, Hardeman develops thesame ideology that I have developed here. I can only appeal,however, that I came to my understanding independent ofHardeman. In addition, Hardeman, as might be expected,comes out in favor of a strict construction, while I would bemore inclined (within certain limitations) to a more loose con-struction. All of this simply demonstrates what a wise manrecorded years ago: "There is nothing new under the sun"(Eccl 1:9).

7 Edwin Scott Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion inAmerica (New York: Harper & Row, 1962).

4

Leaven, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 4, Art. 4

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol7/iss4/4