INTRODUCTION

HOW THIS CAME ABOUT

I am a life-long part of the (non-instrumental) Church of Christ and an amateur historian of the Stone-Campbell (or "Restoration") Movement . I'm increasingly amazed that our movement, begun to "unify the Christians in the sects," could divide into many factions, and do it in fewer than two hundred years.

Many authors contribute to my continuing education. Cecil Hook's "Our Heritage of Unity and Fellowship" (available from him at 10905 S.W. Mira Court, Tigard, OR 97223) is especially valuable. It reproduces essays by W. Carl Ketcherside (from Mission Messenger) and Leroy Garrett (from Restoration Review).

Chapter 13, The Sand Creek Address (from Mission Messenger , February, 1962) caught my eye. I believe the Sand Creek Address and Declaration is a key to understanding the mind sets which erupted into the 1880-1910 "Great" Division. Ketcherside commented, after a lengthy quotation, "It is interesting to note that the question of instrumental music is not specifically mentioned in the document ."

My other source, "Christians Only" (James DeForest Murch), in its quotation says "Some of these things of which we hereby complain and against which we protest the use of instrumental music in the worship ."

I wrote Leroy Garrett for a "steer" to an authentic copy. I also sought a copy of the "original" from Disciples of Christ Historical Society.

Leroy's response exceeded my expectations!. There were two versions in circulation from the beginning. The earlier was from Daniel Sommer's Octographic Review of September 5, 1889; the second from J. L. Rowe's Christian Leader, September 10, 1889. Ketcherside quoted the Sommer version; Murch the Rowe version; both are true to their sources! Even better, Leroy loaned me dog-eared photocopies of both and also of Sommer's account of his "hour and forty minute" speech which immediately preceded the public reading!

The Historical Society responded also. They couldn't come up with a copy (authentic or otherwise) of the Address, but did provide a copy of a rebuttal from Christian Standard for September 28, 1889.

To keep this enlightening information readily available for my own use (and make it available for others), I typed it all into my word processor. I hope I have not introduced additional errors of punctuation, grammar, etc. The originals have plenty of their own!

I "finished" this effort in April, 1995 and provided copies to a few interested people. This was a smart move because they, in turn, sent me enough more material to make revision possible and desirable.

As the compiler, I have a few words to say about each document. The documents, though, really speak for themselves.

Sand Creek is a fascinating subject. I'm glad to share my collection with others who share my interest.

A GRAND OCCASION

Daniel Sommer, who crosses my Indiana heritage more than once, was an able exploiter of the mass media of his day the printed page and oratory. Billy Graham didn't invent mass gatherings--the audience at Sand Creek exceeded 5,000! Since Sommer includes "independent" verification, people must have suspected "preacher counts" even in 1889!

There are traces of demagoguery here and in this article and even more in the Address. Sommer plays to the county vs. town/city social pressures of the time. His main constituency, mostly in the backwoods, were the "good guys." The problems came from the cities and towns!

Daniel Sommer is proved a prophet. The (event) "is destined to pass into history and the influence thereof will doubtless be felt until the close of time." The "end of time" hasn't arrived, but after more than one hundred years, the impact of Sand Creek is still felt!

Sommer returned to Ohio from Sand Creek sometime after Sunday, August 18 (1889). He met his first deadline (August 29) with this "teaser" and no doubt burned midnight oil getting ready for the main blast.

AN ADDRESS

Daniel Sommer prepared the assembled audience for the carefully crafted Address and Declaration which followed. He acknowledges the published version of his speech as "written out" after the fact. One insertion is identified; there may be others.

More than half of the transcript is the introduction. Sommer rehashes controversy-less matters to get the audience into an agreeing mood. He hammers his theme over and over: Faith comes from testimony; no testimony no faith; a religious practice not based on faith is sin. Religious concepts not supported by a "thus saith the Lord" are products of inference; "supposition, presumption, view, notion, idea."

Sommer then recites targeted "non-faith" issues:

THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY. Half the treatment deals with the lack of scriptural authority. Sommer fails to see his creed-adopting session as equally unauthorized. The other half concerned money. Sommer made his hearers (in back country which missed the 1890 city/town prosperity) feel closer to the impecunious Peter, John and Jesus than to moneyed disciples in the cities and towns. "Poor but faithful country folk" vs. "rich and progressive city folk" is a persistent theme.

MONEY-RAISING, MORE GENERALLY. Sommer finds a doctrine of "simplicity" in scripture. His interesting ideas on the causes of poverty of individuals are fit directly to congregations. His comments about box suppers will enlighten later generations! Sommer tosses one tidbit to the audience's appetite for the risqué. He sets the older (male) against the younger (female); the "goat" of the one story is "boy just out of his teens"; it's the older businessman against the young, fun-loving, female.

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. While I've heard most of Sommers' arguments "from my youth up," the "backslidden Jews" slant is new to me! Note one novel twist: The "weak" consciences of the strongest, least ignorant and most highly esteemed (those in the audience) should not be offended by those of opposite characteristics. One paragraph is sufficient to deal with objections! Meeting houses and artificial lighting and heat therein are specifically authorized in scripture! You need only know where to look!

At the end, the erring brethren are "formally" charged. They've been found guilty; the congregations assembled by proxy are about to pronounce judgment! The ball is passed to Elder P. P. Warren.

ADDRESS AND DECLARATION (Version I; Version II)

"Protestant denominations have bishops; the Church of Christ has editors!" "Editor-bishop" shows up often in our written lore. Our movement was shaped by men who used the printed page effectively. Alexander Campbell was first with Christian Baptist and later Millennial Harbinger. Campbell used his near monopoly to keep the movement relatively unified into the 1860s. He was followed by potential successors with differing "axes to grind." None combined Campbell's mixture of charisma and financial resources; no one since has captured the loyalty of the entire restoration movement.

Four publications figure in the Sand Creek story. Octographic Review (published by Daniel Sommer) and Christian Leader (published by J. L. Rowe) agreed with the sentiments of "Address and Declaration." Gospel Advocate (edited by David Lipscomb) agreed with the intent but found fault with the mechanism. Christian Standard was on the other side, supporting (I assume) the "innovators" and opposing tactics of the conservatives. Sommer and Rowe put the Address into print without delay. The Standard followed with a rebuttal two weeks later. Lipscomb expressed his reservations some three years after the fact.

Presumably, the title "Address and Declaration" implied continuity with Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and Address."

Sommer's version includes a brief introduction by P. P. Warren. Warren says the document was "decided upon" by "prominent brethren" the preceding day. It's straightforward. If the last sentence weren't there, it would be a concise statement of position and a starting point for serious discussion. Unlike Sommer's speech, there are no cheap appeals to "town vs. country," "male vs. female" and "old vs. young." And, there is no mention of instrumental music.

The last sentence converts the position paper to an ultimatum! "Get In" (with us) or "Get Out" (of the brotherhood)! Daniel Sommer said a few minutes before: "The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God." This is it!

Considering the emotional turmoil prevailing, some supporters may have thought the Address too tame. I wonder if any considered the unbridled arrogance (as the "last word" interpreters of God's will) which it conveys?

Except for editorial details, the versions agree with one exception: Instrumental Music in Worship is condemned in the Rowe version but unmentioned in the Sommer version. Why?

First, I do not doubt Sommer's accuracy; I'm convinced that instrumental music was, indeed, omitted. Sommer (like others of his kind) was a stickler for "crossed t's and dotted i's." Some of Sommer's readers (and supporters) were in the audience; some helped to prepare the Declaration. Omission would have been noticed, gossiped about and used to cast doubt on his Sommer's "soundness."

Leroy Garrett suggests "It is possible that Warren did not see instrumental music in the same light as Sommer." I suggest a holdout, (which would have prevented unanimous approval) by one or more of the other signers. Or, perhaps, Sommer injected "instrumental music" into the manuscript he sent Rowe for publication or Rowe, knowing Sommer's sentiments, put it in himself. The message may have been tailored a bit to suit different audiences.

It's hard to understand everything which surfaces in a church squabble even if you're part of it -- it's even harder after a hundred years!

SAND CREEK CHRONICLES (Christian Standard)

The editor of Christian Standard missed a golden opportunity to soothe the emerging conflagration. Instead of reason, he used sarcasm! Quoting "rumor" and "ridicule" doesn't encourage objectivity.

The editor compares "Man-made religious papers" and "imported editor" vs. "Man-made missionary societies" and "imported pastors." Presented constructively, this might have encouraged rethinking by Sand Creek supporters. Presented as it was, it drove the wedge even deeper!

SAND CREED ADDRESS AND DECLARATION (Lipscomb)

David Lipscomb must have lived in a vacuum! It's difficult to understand how, in this time of general unrest in our brotherhood North and South, that news from Illinois required three years to get to Nashville. Mason-Dixon must really be a line!

Perhaps Lipscomb didn't want to hear--in this period, he tended to oppose division while Sommer tended to egg it on.

Lipscomb, it appears, agreed with the thrust of the Declaration. "The evils opposed, we oppose." He didn't object to the "can not and will not regard them as brethren" attitude. He did object to the nature of the gathering which produced the Declaration and, thereby, pushed it aside.

THE SAND CREEK CHURCH CASE (Circuit Court Decision)
THE SAND CREEK CHURCH CASE (Supreme Court Decision)

The Sand Creek Declaration was more than ten years old when this lawsuit over ownership of church property wound its way through the courts.

Note the subtle change of attitude evidenced by the Advocate's introductory paragraph. The conveners of the unauthorized convention in 1889 are now "those loyal to the Bible." By now, David Lipscomb sees division coming and values allies.

The Circuit Court decision, itself, is plain enough and more economical with words than most legal documents! From the laudatory remarks considering both sides, you can suspect that the judge was to soon run for reelection!

The Supreme Court decision, while more wordy, rubber stamps the trial judge's logic and affirms his decision.

I'm struck by unfamiliar phrases in the Supreme Court decision: "plaintiffs in error" and "defendants in error." I haven't the slightest idea about the legal significance of "in error" but it seems that when groups of brethren oppose each other in court, everybody concerned is "in error."

A HISTORY OF SAND CREEK CHURCH

Leroy Garrett shared this terse summary of the Sand Creek story after I had already complied the bulk of this collection. I've chosen to add it.

I know nothing about the author except what I read between the lines of his essay. While I suspect he has emotional ties to the Sand Creek congregation, I'm sure he has strong ties to the Stone-Campbell movement. I'm sure, too, that he shares my deep sorrow with our well-documented tendency to divide.

Written after some seventy years of "reflection" by himself and others, he puts the whole affair into perspective much better than I can. I commend it.

AS A WHOLE

The Address, Address and Declaration, and Sand Creek Chronicles are a superb "don't do it this way" example for the Church of Christ through all time.

The consequences were tragic! Such is inevitable when contrary-minded brethren fan differences into a confrontation.

The documents, as accurate as I can make them, follow. Form your own conclusions. The right "to interpret" still applies.

A. K. (Kenny) Guthrie
2044 Indian Hill Road
Lynchburg, VA 24503
April 27, 1996

Revised to Include "A History of Sand Creek Church," April 26, 1996

[Contents | Daniel Sommer Page | Restoration Texts Page]

Kenny Guthrie can be reached at KennyGE@aol.com. This page last updated 18 June, 1996