WHY DID MISSIONARY SOCIETIES DIVIDE THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?
WHEN DOES COOPERATION BECOME AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCH?
In our last study, we followed Christians who wanted to move beyond denominational divisions and return to the teaching and practice of the New Testament.
They agreed that the gospel should be preached.
They agreed that Christians should work together.
And they agreed that Christ, not a human religious organization, is the head of His church.
Yet they divided over a question that might sound like a simple matter of organization:
MAY CONGREGATIONS ESTABLISH A SEPARATE MISSIONARY SOCIETY TO DIRECT AND FINANCE THEIR SHARED EVANGELISTIC WORK?
Some believed such a society was simply a practical way to carry out Christ’s command to preach the gospel.
Others believed it placed another organization between congregations and work Christ had entrusted to His people.
To understand the disagreement, we need to examine what the societies actually did, what supporters and opponents argued, and what the New Testament says about congregations working together.
Most important, we need to keep two questions separate:
MAY CHRISTIANS COOPERATE?
And:
WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT COOPERATION?
1. WHAT WAS THE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY?
In October 1849, representatives from congregations associated with the Restoration Movement met in Cincinnati, Ohio.
They established the American Christian Missionary Society, commonly called the ACMS, to coordinate and support evangelistic work.
The society had officers and an organizational structure for receiving support and carrying out missionary work. Alexander Campbell, although absent from the organizing meeting, became its first president.
The society was not presented as a replacement for the church or as a new gospel.
Its supporters saw a practical problem.
One congregation might not have enough money to send and support a missionary in a distant place.
Many congregations working together could accomplish something none of them could easily accomplish alone.
But opponents asked another question:
WHO DID CHRIST GIVE THAT WORK TO?
If evangelism belongs to Christ’s church, may churches create another organization to receive their money, select missionaries, and direct the work?
That became the heart of the controversy.
2. DID EVERYONE AGREE THAT THE GOSPEL SHOULD BE PREACHED?
Yes.
That is important because the controversy can easily be misrepresented.
Jesus said:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” — Matthew 28:19, KJV
Paul asked:
“And how shall they hear without a preacher?” — Romans 10:14, KJV
And:
“And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” — Romans 10:15, KJV
Supporters and opponents of missionary societies agreed that people needed to hear the gospel.
It would therefore be unfair to say that opponents of the society did not care about missions.
It would be equally unfair to say that supporters deliberately wanted to replace Christ’s church with a human organization.
The disagreement was about how the work should be organized and directed.
Both sides believed the gospel should be preached.
The question was how Christians should cooperate in preaching it.
3. WHY DID SOME CHRISTIANS WANT A MISSIONARY SOCIETY?
Imagine a small congregation that wants to help send a preacher overseas.
It cannot support him alone.
Another congregation wants to help.
Then another.
Soon practical questions appear.
Who communicates with the preacher?
Who receives the contributions?
Who makes sure the money reaches him?
Who decides where workers are most needed?
Who keeps records?
Who reports back to the supporting Christians?
Supporters believed a missionary society could handle those responsibilities efficiently.
A common organization could receive contributions, coordinate workers, keep records, and direct resources toward mission work.
The practical problem was real.
But a practical need does not, by itself, settle a biblical question.
The church has many practical needs.
The question remains:
WHAT MAY WE CREATE TO MEET THOSE NEEDS, AND WHAT AUTHORITY MAY WE GIVE IT?
4. WHY DID OTHERS OBJECT?
Opponents argued that the New Testament already identifies the church as the body through which Christians carry out Christ’s work.
They therefore questioned the authority for creating another organization that could receive church funds, select missionaries, and direct evangelistic work.
Men such as Jacob Creath Jr. and Tolbert Fanning became prominent critics of missionary societies.
Their objection was not simply:
CHRISTIANS MUST NEVER WORK TOGETHER.
The question was whether cooperation between congregations and creating a separate organization to direct their work were the same thing.
Suppose several congregations voluntarily support the same preacher.
That is cooperation.
Now suppose they create a permanent organization with officers, funds, policies, and authority to select and direct missionaries.
Is that merely cooperation?
Or has something else been created?
That was the argument.
And it is a question we should examine from Scripture rather than settle merely by choosing a side in a nineteenth-century controversy.
5. DID ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ALWAYS HOLD THE SAME VIEW?
No.
Earlier in his career, Campbell criticized denominational missionary societies and argued that the church itself should carry out its missionary responsibility.
Later, he became more supportive of organized cooperation among congregations.
He accepted the presidency of the American Christian Missionary Society and remained associated with it for years.
Opponents naturally pointed to Campbell’s earlier arguments.
Supporters could point to his later conclusions.
But neither settles anything.
The earlier Alexander Campbell was not an apostle.
The later Alexander Campbell was not an apostle either.
His change of mind is historically interesting.
It does not establish biblical authority.
Teachers change their minds.
Sometimes the earlier position was right.
Sometimes the later one is.
Sometimes both need correction.
THE TEACHER’S NAME DOES NOT SETTLE THE QUESTION. THE TEXT MUST.
6. WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY ABOUT SENDING PREACHERS?
Read Acts 13:1–4.
Barnabas and Saul were at Antioch when the Holy Ghost said:
“Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” — Acts 13:2, KJV
Then:
“And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” — Acts 13:3, KJV
Luke immediately adds:
“So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed.” — Acts 13:4, KJV
Notice both parts.
The Holy Spirit directed the work.
The Christians at Antioch participated in sending the workers.
What is missing?
Luke does not describe a permanent regional or international missionary board standing between Antioch and the workers.
But we should not make the passage say more than it says in the other direction either.
Luke does not say:
NO TWO CONGREGATIONS MAY EVER COOPERATE IN SUPPORTING THE SAME PREACHER.
Acts 13 shows a congregation participating in mission work.
It does not answer every later question about how congregations may cooperate.
7. DID OTHER CONGREGATIONS SUPPORT PAUL?
Yes.
Paul told the Philippians:
“Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.” — Philippians 4:15, KJV
He continued:
“For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.” — Philippians 4:16, KJV
Paul was working in one place while Christians somewhere else supported him.
He also told the Corinthians:
“I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” — 2 Corinthians 11:8, KJV
So the New Testament clearly establishes this much:
A CONGREGATION COULD SUPPORT A PREACHER WORKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.
But notice what these passages do not describe.
They do not mention a permanent missionary society standing between every supporting congregation and Paul.
Neither do they say that money could never pass through the hands of another trusted Christian.
The text establishes the giving and receiving.
We should be careful about adding organizational details Paul did not give us.
8. DID PAUL REQUIRE EVERY CONGREGATION TO WORK ALONE?
No.
This is important.
Read 1 Corinthians 16:1–4.
Paul was coordinating a collection for needy Christians. Corinth was involved. Churches in Galatia were involved. Trusted people would carry the gift.
Then read 2 Corinthians 8:16–24.
Paul describes men helping administer this shared work. One brother was:
“chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace.” — 2 Corinthians 8:19, KJV
Several congregations were participating in a common effort.
The collection concerned relief rather than missionary support, so we should not pretend the two works are identical.
But it does establish something important.
CONGREGATIONS COULD COOPERATE.
They could share resources.
They could choose trusted representatives.
They could arrange for people to administer those resources responsibly.
So congregational cooperation was not invented in 1849.
The harder question is:
WHAT KIND OF ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY MAY THAT COOPERATION INVOLVE?
9. DOES A SHARED TREASURY AUTOMATICALLY CREATE A HIGHER CHURCH AUTHORITY?
No.
Suppose five congregations want to support the same missionary.
They agree to send their contributions through one congregation because that makes the bookkeeping easier.
Has the receiving congregation automatically become the governing authority over the other four?
No.
Now change the arrangement.
Suppose the receiving congregation begins deciding which missionaries all five churches must support.
Suppose it sets the amount each church must contribute.
Suppose it can overrule the elders of another participating congregation.
Now we have a different question.
The issue is not simply:
WHERE IS THE MONEY DEPOSITED?
The important questions are:
Who controls the work?
Who makes the decisions?
Are those decisions binding upon other congregations?
Who is accountable?
And have the elders of one congregation assumed authority over Christians outside the flock entrusted to them?
Peter told elders:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV
Any cooperative arrangement should be examined with that responsibility in mind.
10. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AID AND AN ADDITION?
This distinction can be useful, but merely applying one of the labels does not settle the question.
Suppose a congregation writes a budget.
The budget helps the congregation carry out decisions it has already made.
It does not become another governing body.
Suppose the congregation uses a bank to transfer money to a missionary.
The bank provides a service.
It does not decide what the congregation believes, whom its elders must support, or where its missionaries must preach.
Now suppose a separate organization receives contributions, selects workers, establishes priorities, and directs the mission program.
That organization is doing more than transferring money.
Supporters may say those responsibilities are practical ways of carrying out evangelism.
Opponents may say the organization is performing work God entrusted to congregations.
How do we decide?
Not by saying:
“IT IS ONLY AN AID.”
And not by saying:
“IT IS AN ADDITION.”
Those are conclusions.
We need to examine what the organization actually does and where Scripture places responsibility for that work.
11. WHAT AUTHORITY DID THE 1849 SOCIETY ACTUALLY CLAIM?
The American Christian Missionary Society was a voluntary organization with officers, members, financial arrangements, and an organized means of conducting missionary work.
That is more than simply saying:
“SOME CHRISTIANS HELPED ONE ANOTHER.”
But we should not exaggerate in the opposite direction.
The ACMS was not a pope.
It was not a diocesan bishop.
It did not possess the same kind of compulsory jurisdiction over every Restoration congregation that some hierarchical church structures claimed.
So we need more precise questions.
Could a congregation refuse to participate?
Could it support a missionary directly?
Could society officers impose a decision upon a congregation that had not placed itself under their arrangement?
Could the society speak for churches that did not agree with it?
And even if participation was formally voluntary, could the society become so influential that support for it became an unofficial test of loyalty?
That last question is important.
FORMAL AUTHORITY AND INFORMAL PRESSURE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
But either can affect a congregation.
12. DID THE SOCIETY’S DECISIONS EVER AFFECT CHRISTIANS WHO DISAGREED WITH IT?
Yes.
The American Civil War exposed the problem sharply.
In 1863, the ACMS adopted a resolution expressing loyalty to the United States government and condemning the armed rebellion against it.
That action intensified tensions with Christians in the South.
The Civil War involved slavery, secession, preservation of the Union, competing claims of political loyalty, and enormous human suffering. We should not reduce that history to a minor disagreement about church organization.
But the ACMS action exposed a narrower question directly related to our study.
WHEN A NATIONAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION SPEAKS, WHOM DOES IT REPRESENT?
Its officers?
The delegates present?
The congregations contributing money?
Every congregation associated with the larger Restoration Movement?
A congregation might support missionary work while disagreeing with a political resolution adopted by the missionary society.
Could the society speak in that congregation’s name?
The controversy showed why the distinction between coordinating work and speaking for churches mattered.
13. DID THE CIVIL WAR CAUSE THE ENTIRE DIVISION?
No.
Opposition to missionary societies existed before the Civil War.
The war intensified tensions already present.
Afterward, regional relationships, the consequences of slavery and war, economic differences, missionary societies, instrumental music, and differing understandings of biblical authority all affected relationships within the movement.
So we should not imagine one meeting at which everyone divided into two groups.
That did not happen.
Neither should we assume that every opponent of the missionary society held the same position about the Civil War, slavery, or every other issue.
The separation developed over decades.
But the biblical question behind the missionary-society controversy remained:
WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE WORK CHRIST GAVE HIS CHURCH?
14. DID OPPONENTS OF THE SOCIETY AGREE ABOUT EVERY ALTERNATIVE?
No.
Rejecting one arrangement does not automatically tell us which other arrangements are acceptable.
Some Christians preferred direct support from individual congregations to missionaries.
Others accepted arrangements in which one congregation received and distributed money contributed by several churches.
Later generations debated what became known as the sponsoring church arrangement and church support of other institutions.
Those later controversies remind us that there were more than two possibilities:
A NATIONAL MISSIONARY SOCIETY
or:
EVERY CONGREGATION MUST WORK ENTIRELY ALONE.
The New Testament clearly shows Christians and congregations helping one another.
So the real question is not:
MAY WE HELP ONE ANOTHER?
The question is:
HOW MAY THAT HELP BE ORGANIZED WITHOUT GIVING SOMEONE AUTHORITY SCRIPTURE HAS NOT GIVEN HIM?
15. WHAT DOES ACTS 15 TELL US ABOUT CONGREGATIONS SETTLING A COMMON PROBLEM?
Read Acts 15:1–29.
A serious dispute arose when some taught that Gentile believers had to be circumcised.
Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem.
The apostles and elders considered the matter.
The church was involved.
A message was then sent to Gentile believers.
So Acts 15 certainly shows communication and cooperation extending beyond one local congregation.
But pay attention to the setting.
THE APOSTLES WERE THERE.
And the question was whether Gentile Christians had to submit to a requirement being imposed as necessary for salvation.
The resulting letter says:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” — Acts 15:28, KJV
That is an extraordinary statement.
We should therefore be careful about turning Acts 15 into something Luke never describes.
Acts 15 does not describe a permanent missionary board controlling the evangelistic budgets of all churches.
But neither does it prove that Christians from different congregations may never meet, consult, or cooperate about a common problem.
WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THE JERUSALEM MEETING PROVE MORE THAN LUKE SAYS IT PROVES.
16. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVE ONE CONGREGATION AUTHORITY OVER ANOTHER?
The New Testament clearly gives elders responsibility for a flock.
Paul called:
“the elders of the church” — Acts 20:17, KJV
and told them:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” — Acts 20:28, KJV
Peter similarly told elders:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV
These passages establish real responsibility.
But they do not describe the elders of one congregation as possessing an ordinary, permanent right to govern every other congregation.
That does not prohibit communication.
It does not prohibit advice.
It does not prohibit cooperation.
But if one congregation or its elders claim binding authority over another congregation, we should ask:
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORITY?
Helping another congregation is not the same thing as overseeing it.
17. CAN CHRISTIANS FORM A LEGAL ORGANIZATION WITHOUT MAKING IT A CHURCH?
Yes.
A legal organization and a church are not automatically the same thing.
Christians may organize to publish books.
Operate a school.
Transport supplies.
Provide disaster relief.
Or perform other useful work.
The existence of an organization does not automatically make it another church.
Neither does incorporation automatically give an organization spiritual authority.
But saying:
“IT IS NOT A CHURCH”
does not settle every question either.
Suppose a congregation pays a printer to produce Bible-study material.
The printer performs a service.
The printer does not decide what the elders must teach.
Now suppose a separate organization receives the congregation’s evangelistic funds, selects its missionaries, determines where they will work, and establishes conditions under which congregations may participate.
That arrangement deserves closer examination.
The question is not merely:
IS THIS ORGANIZATION LEGAL?
The question is:
WHAT WORK IS IT DOING, AND WHAT AUTHORITY DOES IT EXERCISE?
18. DOES THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY MATTER?
Yes, because an individual Christian’s decision to support something and a congregation’s decision to support something are not necessarily the same question.
An individual may decide to contribute personal money to a school, relief organization, publishing work, or other cause.
A congregation’s treasury consists of money entrusted for work the congregation has undertaken together.
Paul took the handling of entrusted money seriously.
Read 2 Corinthians 8:18–21.
He wanted the collection administered in a way that avoided legitimate suspicion:
“Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” — 2 Corinthians 8:21, KJV
That particular collection was for needy Christians, not missionary work.
But the concern for responsible handling of entrusted funds is clear.
A congregation should be able to answer:
Where is the money going?
Who controls it?
What is it supporting?
Who is accountable?
The fact that an organization does good work does not eliminate those questions.
And the fact that a congregation controls its own treasury does not guarantee that every decision it makes is wise.
BOTH REQUIRE ACCOUNTABILITY.
19. MUST EVERY CONGREGATION SUPPORT THE SAME MISSIONARY WORK?
No.
The New Testament does not describe every congregation supporting every preacher.
Philippi supported Paul.
Other churches also supported him.
Antioch participated in sending Barnabas and Saul.
Different congregations took responsibility for particular work.
The New Testament does not describe one universal missionary budget that every congregation was required to support.
But neither does it forbid several congregations from voluntarily supporting the same preacher.
So suppose a congregation declines to support a particular mission project.
Does that prove it does not care about evangelism?
No.
Perhaps it supports another preacher.
Perhaps it is already committed to another work.
Perhaps it lacks the money.
Perhaps it questions the proposed arrangement.
We should examine the actual reason rather than assign a motive.
That principle would have helped Christians on both sides of this controversy.
20. CAN A MISSIONARY ORGANIZATION BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE WORK IT WAS CREATED TO SUPPORT?
Certainly.
But that danger is not unique to missionary societies.
A congregation can become concerned with preserving itself.
So can a school.
A publishing ministry.
A charitable organization.
A denominational headquarters.
Even a small Bible program can begin protecting the institution more than serving the purpose for which it was created.
But we should be fair here too.
Administrative expenses are not automatically wasteful.
Someone may need to keep records.
Handle money.
Communicate with missionaries.
Arrange travel.
Maintain legal documents.
Provide accountability.
The question is whether those activities serve the work or whether preserving the organization gradually becomes the work.
Paul wrote:
“Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” — 1 Corinthians 4:2, KJV
That principle applies wherever Christians have been entrusted with responsibility.
AN ORGANIZATION EXISTS TO SERVE A PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE DOES NOT EXIST TO PRESERVE THE ORGANIZATION.
21. DOES SUCCESS PROVE THAT AN ORGANIZATION HAS BIBLICAL AUTHORITY?
No.
Suppose a missionary society helps send a preacher somewhere and hundreds of people hear the gospel.
We can be thankful that people heard about Christ.
But that result does not automatically answer every question about the organization’s structure.
Now reverse it.
Suppose a congregation directly supports a preacher and hundreds respond to his preaching.
Does that success prove that every other arrangement is forbidden?
No.
Results matter.
But results do not answer every question about authority.
Paul wrote about people preaching Christ from different motives.
He said:
“What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice.” — Philippians 1:18, KJV
Paul could rejoice that Christ was preached without approving every motive of every preacher.
We need the same ability to distinguish questions.
DID SOMETHING GOOD HAPPEN?
and:
WAS EVERYTHING ABOUT THE METHOD BIBLICALLY JUSTIFIED?
Those are not always the same question.
22. WHAT DID THE SOCIETY CONTROVERSY REVEAL ABOUT THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?
The movement had begun with an appeal to follow the New Testament rather than inherited denominational structures.
Yet Christians sharing that goal reached different conclusions about missionary societies.
Some saw the society as a practical instrument for cooperation.
Others saw it as an organization assuming responsibilities Christ had given congregations.
The disagreement eventually became entangled with money, representation, regional identity, the Civil War, instrumental music, and different understandings of biblical authority.
And the ACMS never represented every congregation associated with the Restoration Movement.
Its history should make us cautious about two opposite arguments.
The first is:
“IT DOES GOOD WORK, SO IT MUST BE SCRIPTURAL.”
That does not follow.
The second is:
“WE REJECT THAT ORGANIZATION, SO OUR OWN ARRANGEMENT MUST BE SCRIPTURAL.”
That does not follow either.
Both arrangements must be examined.
23. DID THE 1906 CENSUS SETTLE THE DISAGREEMENT?
No.
The United States religious census for 1906 reported the Churches of Christ separately from the Disciples of Christ.
But the census did not create the division.
Nor did it decide which interpretation of Scripture was correct.
The separation had developed gradually over decades. In fact, the later 1916 Census report acknowledged that the line had been difficult to draw in 1906.
By that time, missionary societies and instrumental music had become important markers of separation, but the history also involved regional, social, and other differences.
A government census can count religious bodies.
It can describe them.
It can record what they report about themselves.
IT CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR TEACHING AGREES WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Neither can age.
Or size.
Or historical pedigree.
Or the name on the building.
The biblical question still has to be answered from Scripture.
24. WHAT QUESTIONS SHOULD WE ASK ABOUT ANY PROPOSED MISSION ARRANGEMENT?
Instead of beginning with a label such as missionary society, sponsoring church, or mission committee, begin with what the arrangement actually does.
Who selects the workers?
Who controls the money?
Who determines where the workers go?
Who can change the direction of the work?
Who is accountable if something goes wrong?
May participating congregations make their own decisions?
Does anyone claim authority over congregations beyond the flock entrusted to their elders?
Then return to the text.
Acts 13 shows Antioch participating in sending workers.
Philippians 4 shows a congregation supporting Paul while he worked elsewhere.
Second Corinthians 8 shows congregations cooperating in a collection and selecting trusted people to administer it.
Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 show elders responsible for the flock entrusted to them.
We have to account for all of that evidence.
The New Testament shows congregational responsibility.
It also shows cooperation.
Our task is to understand how those truths fit together without granting authority the text does not establish.
25. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
The missionary-society controversy was not primarily an argument about whether lost people needed to hear the gospel.
Both sides believed the gospel should be preached.
The disagreement concerned how congregations should organize their work and who had authority to direct it.
Supporters of the American Christian Missionary Society believed an organized cooperative effort could help churches accomplish work that might be difficult for one congregation alone.
Opponents believed the society assumed responsibilities belonging to congregations and risked creating an authority structure outside the local church.
The New Testament describes congregations sending and supporting preachers.
It also describes congregations cooperating, sharing resources, and selecting trusted people to help administer shared work.
Those passages must be read together.
A later organization does not become biblical merely because it accomplishes useful work.
But neither does the absence of a modern organizational name from the New Testament, by itself, answer every question about permissible cooperation.
We must examine:
THE WORK.
THE ARRANGEMENT.
THE AUTHORITY CLAIMED.
And whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt from that examination.
26. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?
Missionary societies were not the only issue that divided the Restoration Movement.
Another disagreement concerned worship.
The New Testament repeatedly instructs Christians to sing.
But it does not explicitly describe Christians using musical instruments in congregational worship.
Some Christians concluded that an instrument simply aided the singing.
Others concluded that adding an instrument introduced another kind of music into worship and therefore required biblical authority.
That disagreement eventually became one of the most visible dividing lines within the Restoration Movement.
But the question reaches far beyond music:
WHEN SCRIPTURE TELLS CHRISTIANS WHAT TO DO, HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING HELPS US DO IT OR CHANGES WHAT GOD TOLD US TO DO?
That takes us to our next study:
WHY DID INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC DIVIDE THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: WHY DID INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC DIVIDE THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?