Organizational design approved in 1968 by the International Convention of the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), resulting in the formation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Rather than being something entirely new in the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement, Restructure represented a maturing of organizational developments that had been under way in the Disciples stream of the Movement for many years.
In his earlier years, Alexander Campbell rejected nearly every vestige of ecclesiastical organization beyond the congregation. However, in his middle years he saw the need for an institution to prepare people for ministry and thus founded Bethany College. Later, in 1849, he became president of the newly organized American Christian Missionary Society. In the 1880s a number of agencies were created to extend the ministry of congregations more broadly into the nation and world: the Board of Church Extension, the National Benevolent Association, and the Pension Fund, just to name a few.
Independent boards comprised of individual members of the Christian Churches provided oversight of these various institutions. However, relationships also developed with the conventions of the churches so that a growing sense of corporate ownership of these institutions developed.
In the 1920s, Unified Promotion was created as a means by which Disciples could support a number of agencies and transcongregational ministries without each congregation being solicited by each individual institution. The International Convention became an annual event through which connections and relationships could be affirmed and reinforced.
By the 1950s there had arisen among many Disciples leaders a felt need for a revisioning of the Brotherhood (as it was called in those days) and a restructuring of its life and ministry. The restructure desired was driven by the seven italicized principles enumerated by Ronald Osborn in 1964.
I. The Brotherhood seeks structures rooted in Christ’s ministry made known through Scripture.
Any suitable church structure will necessarily facilitate Christ’s ministry as made known in the Scriptures, for the church is, as Alexander Campbell understood it, “the body of the Spirit of the living Christ.” The church’s work is Christ’s work.
II. The Brotherhood seeks structures that are comprehensive in ministry and mission.
The ministry and mission of the church are not merely local, but also global. Christians are called to witness “from our doorsteps to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Thus a suitable church structure will enable both local and global work and will facilitate a church’s commitment to the work of the whole (ecumenical) church.
III. The Brotherhood seeks structures by which congregations may fulfill their ministries.
The focus of any suitable structure will be upon helping congregations to be faithful to the whole ministry and mission of the church. Therefore, “overseas ministry,” for example, is not primarily the ministry and mission of a unit of the church (known as the Division of Overseas Ministries in the restructured church) but is a ministry and mission of every congregation that is facilitated by the Division of Overseas Ministries.
IV. The Brotherhood seeks structures that are responsibly interrelated.
Any suitable structure will have parts that are interrelated and interdependent as befits the Body of Christ (“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ”; 1 Cor. 12:12).
V. The Brotherhood seeks structures that manifest both unity and diversity.
Unity does not mean uniformity. Any suitable structure must allow for all to follow their Christian conscience.
VI. The Brotherhood seeks to be ecumenical.
Any suitable structure should make it possible for Disciples to work with other communions of the Body of Christ as they are led to do so.
VII. The Brotherhood seeks structures faithful in stewardship.
Any suitable structure should seek to make the most faithful, effective, and efficient use of the resources available for the ministry and mission of the church.
The resulting Restructure was approved by the International Convention in 1968 and implemented with the first General Assembly in 1969. The name of the church was changed from the International Convention of the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada. This change of name was a recognition and a sign that Disciples were coming to see themselves as one church rather than as a mere convention of churches and agencies.
The foundation of Restructure is a covenant. That covenant is rooted in the same new covenant that has always been the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ. It is a three-way covenant that unites God, the individual Christian, and other Christians. Disciples understand themselves to be part of the ekklēsia, the community of the called. They live not by a contract that emphasizes rights, but by a covenant that emphasizes responsibilities. A contractual way of life invites “winner take all” strategies and the competitive hoarding of the church’s gifts. A covenantal way of life, rooted in God’s covenant-making actions in Jesus Christ, calls for interdependence, synergy, and the sharing of resources. It also calls for mutual accountability to one another before God.
In his definitive study of the development of Restructure, Anthony L. Dunnavant identifies four core ideals at the heart of the Stone-Campbell Movement: restoration, unity, liberty, and mission. Although these four ideals were each present in the Movement originally, as articulated by the founders, the four are not always easily compatible. Thus, one of the daunting tasks of the Committee on Restructure was to synthesize these ideals where possible and to lead in particular directions when synthesis was not possible. The end product was a proposal for Restructure that emphasized unity and mission as core ideals rather than restoration and liberty (though restoration and, especially, liberty were not entirely abandoned). This was a reflection of the direction that had already been chosen by most “cooperative” congregations over the decades.
There was considerable controversy at the time of Restructure among those who had fears that the new structure would create a church that was much like the churches from which the Campbells and Stone had withdrawn. Especially there were concerns that Restructure meant that the general or regional manifestations of the church would somehow come to own the property of congregations and would thus be able to force congregations to behave in certain ways. This was a gross misreading of the content and intent of Restructure, and subsequent history has shown that those fears were unfounded. Congregations continue to operate with complete freedom (liberty).
There were also fears that the newly established General Assembly could force its will upon congregations. Again, however, these fears proved unfounded, as the General Assembly has no authority over individual congregations. As Disciples say, the General Assembly speaks to the church, but not for the church. Admittedly, this is a point of polity that is generally misunderstood by the secular media, who tend to report decisions of the General Assembly as though they indeed speak for the church. But Disciples congregations continue to make their own decisions about matters of conscience, budgets, and property; who will be their pastors; whom they will recommend for ordination; what programs and ministries beyond their congregation they will participate in; and how much money they will contribute to Disciples mission work beyond the congregation.
Disciples are yet on a pilgrimage, and many sense the need to maintain flexibility in their structures. Nevertheless, the human condition is such that structures have a tendency to become ends in themselves and to demand service rather than remaining servants. To remain faithful to the covenantal polity that was the foundation of Restructure, Disciples must remember that the primary purpose of the Regional and General manifestations is not to be ends in themselves but to enhance the faithfulness and effectiveness of congregations, providing ways and means for congregations to address the world faithfully and effectively. Yet congregations must also remember that, while they are fully church, they are not by themselves the church fully.
The covenantal polity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) declares that when Disciples are meeting in a congregational meeting, they are church. When they meet in regional assembly, they are church. When they are doing mission work in, say, the nation of Lesotho in southern Africa through the Division of Overseas Ministries and with their ecumenical partners, they are church. In each case, they are part of the whole Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Indeed, they are meeting and acting and serving as a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ.
Disciples image themselves as a “people of the Table” — the communion table. The table, rather than a body of doctrine, is at the center of their life together, reminding them that they are part of the Body by the grace of God and that they are called to live grace-fully with each other. Thus, when they are at their best, Disciples’ congregational, regional, and general life is an expression of God’s covenant in Jesus Christ.
For Disciples to say that they are in covenant is to declare that they are ethically and spiritually bound to cooperate with one another because, having accepted God’s covenant, they have entered into a covenantal polity with one another and with God! So, while they are not legally bound to work together, neither is working together optional: it is the essence of the church as they understand it.
When Disciples are at their best, they discover that God has granted them just the right balance of freedom and responsibility. It is through this balance of freedom and responsibility that the polity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) works. When it does not work, it is usually because someone embraced the freedom of the covenant but forsook the implied responsibility to work together as the whole community of Christ’s church. Many Disciples recognize that they have a great deal of maturing to do before they can claim that they are truly living by the covenantal polity envisioned in Restructure.
See also Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Church, Doctrine of the; Ministry 2.1
Bibliography Anthony L. Dunnavant, Restructure: Four Historical Ideals in the Campbell-Stone Movement and the Development of the Polity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (1993).
Richard L. Hamm
This entry, written by Richard L. Hamm, was originally published in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Edited by Douglas A. Foster, Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pages 645-647. Republished with permission.