Journey to the CRA: The Beginning of the Christian Restoration Association One Hundred Years Ago This Month

The onramp by which theological liberalism made its way into the Restoration Movement was the acceptance of modernist theological beliefs within the world of academia. While most churches did not immediately feel the impact of theological liberalism in the latter years of the nineteenth century, progressive ideas gradually filtered down from the academy classrooms into the pulpits of the local congregations and onto the distant mission fields around the world. 

Growing Signs of Liberalism 

In December 1889, Dr. R. C. Cave (1843-1923), the popular minister of the Central Christian Church in St. Louis, preached a sermon on John 1:18 in which he claimed the Bible was the result of an evolutionary process rather than divine revelation. Cave went on to deny the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus, while also insisting that there are no conditions for salvation. When Cave’s sermon was published in the St. Louis Republic newspaper, it gained national attention within the movement and caused a significant upheaval. Cave ultimately lost his ministry position in St. Louis because of his abhorrent views, but many of the views he espoused soon began to gain acceptance within the movement.i  

Also in 1889, Hugh C. Garvin (1842-1918), who had studied in Germany and picked up some of the principles of theological liberalism, began teaching at Butler University. Garvin introduced the concept of open membership—the belief that there are no requirements (especially that of baptism) necessary for salvation—to his students. By 1894, George E. Hicks, one of Garvin’s students, introduced the practice of open membership to his church in Indianapolis. While only a few additional instances of open membership would be discovered in Cleveland and New York by the end of the nineteenth century, the practice gained a wider acceptance in the early years of the twentieth century.ii 

A similar occurrence transpired on the mission field when W. T. Moore (1832-1926), one of the founders of the Foreign Christian Missionary Society (FCMS) and the long-time minister of the Central Christian Church in Cincinnati (the largest and most influential Restoration Movement church of its day!), became a missionary to England in 1881. While serving as minister of the West London Tabernacle, a congregation of the British Churches of Christ, Moore accepted both immersed and unimmersed members into the congregation (though Moore himself always practiced and promoted immersion). When news of Moore’s practice reached the supporters of the FCMS, some people began to object to his missionary work. The controversy soon subsided, however, when Isaac Errett (1820-1888), president of the FCMS and editor of the Christian Standard, called for Moore’s opponents to allow the society’s executive committee to deal with the matter. Ultimately, however, nothing was done to admonish Moore, and he continued this practice throughout the duration of his missionary work in England.iii 

While a major conflict over Moore’s acceptance of open membership was avoided in the 1880s, the controversy surrounding the practice of open membership on the mission field would not remain silent for long. By the 1920s, open membership would become a volatile issue within the movement. In many ways, it was the foreboding indicator of the onset of liberalism within the movement and the sign of a diminished concern for the authority of Scripture. 

The formation of the United Christian Missionary Society (UCMS) in 1920 set the stage for a conflict between the more conservative wing of the movement (those who opposed open membership), and the progressives who accepted the more liberal view of open membership. Prior to combining the three earlier missionary societies of the movement into a single society known as the UCMS, missions supporters could withdraw their funds from one organization if they felt the missionaries were not holding to the traditional views of the movement and redirect that money to another missionary organization. With only one organization, however, the option of supporting another missionary society was no longer a possibility. 

When Robert E. Elmore (1878-1968), former member of the executive committee of the FCMS (which became a part of the UCMS), contended in 1920 that the UCMS missionaries in China were practicing open membership, it caused a significant commotion.iv Amid a series of accusations, denials, and resolutions from both sides, John T. Brown (1869-1926), a Louisville minister and member of the UCMS’s board of managers, confirmed Elmore’s report. Upon returning from a world-wide tour of the UCMS’s missionary stations, Brown reported that the missionaries in China and the Philippines were indeed practicing open membership.v 

Along with the earlier revelations of theological liberalism infiltrating the movement’s academic institutions, this disclosure of open membership on the mission field brought a sense of alienation to the conservative adherents of the movement. This sense of alienation was heightened when news of the UCMS’s acceptance of comity agreements, the dividing of mission fields into denominational regions to avoid overlapping work, was revealed in the early 1920s.vi As conservatives withdrew their support from the UCMS, they looked to the Clarke Fund as a resource for combatting liberalism and contributing to world evangelism. 

The Clarke Fund 

The Clarke Fund originated with the estate of Sidney S. Clarke (1805-1871), a successful Cincinnati businessman who left a $50,000 trust to the oversight of the Richmond Street Church in Cincinnati. Clarke’s bequeathment stipulated that only the interest from the principal be used and that it be used for home evangelism in areas without Restoration Movement churches. The initial “Clarke Estate,” however, was soon supplemented by the creation of a separate “Clarke Fund,” consisting of gifts given for the purpose of evangelism beyond the parameters of the original “Clarke Estate” specifications. By 1921, the trustees of the fund were calling for contributions from churches and individuals, while noting that these contributions would not be used for overhead expenses, but for evangelism.vii 

“As the missionary situation in the Brotherhood continued to worsen,” wrote James DeForest Murch (1892-1973) in his autobiography, “it was proposed that the new Clarke Fund should be reorganized to serve as a clearinghouse for a whole new free agency complex.”viii And on September 1, 1925, the restructured Clarke Fund became the Christian Restoration Association (CRA). Murch, who had been serving as the editor of The Lookout with the Standard Publishing Company, resigned his editorial role to become the first president of the CRA.ix 

Between December 1922 until August 1925, L. G. Tomlinson (1893-1960) served as the editor of Facts, a small four-page bulletin designed to promote the work and accomplishments of the Clarke Fund. With the creation of the CRA, however, it was decided that a more robust magazine that would be known as The Restoration Herald should be developed. The first issue, featuring the work of W. D. Cunningham (1864-1936) and the Yotsuya Mission in Japan, was published in September 1925 with Murch as the new magazine’s editor.x 

In the one-hundred-year existence of the CRA, it has functioned as a crucial venue of support and advocacy for the independent agencies in the movement that found it unconscionable—if not impossible—to conduct their ministries amid the liberalism of organizations like the UCMS. As a champion of the direct-support missionary movement—specifically for early independent missionaries like W. D. Cunningham in Japan, E. T. Westrup (1879-1967) in Mexico, Leslie Wolfe (1876-1945) in the Philippines, and J. Russell Morse (1898-1991) in Southeast Asia, among others—the CRA helped launch the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ as a distinctly separate fellowship from the more liberal Disciples of Christ. 

Along with their contributions to direct-support mission, the CRA has had a far-reaching impact on the movement by starting new churches, assisting struggling churches, providing financial loans to churches seeking to expand their ministries, and by sending out evangelists to strengthen the churches across the country. Moreover, the CRA has engaged in educational activities by contributing to the development of Christian Service Camps, sponsoring regular leadership-training seminars, offering the Christian Bible Institute as a correspondence school, and creating the Cincinnati Bible Seminary (known later as Cincinnati Christian University) that operated for ninety-five years as a degree-granting institution for ministry training. In addition, the CRA has served as a publisher, not only of The Restoration Herald (which is also one-hundred-years old), but also of numerous books, pamphlets, and other Christian resources.xi 

The CRA’s accomplishments on behalf of Christ and His church over the past century are far too many to recount. May the Lord continue to use the CRA and The Restoration Herald as tools for the further advancement of His Kingdom as they move into their second century of service.