A friend of mine had been a missionary in Rhodesia for many years with some Churches of Christ. To his surprise he received an official document from another group of Churches of Christ in which he had never preached nor even visited. It announced that they were disfellowshipping him! Why did those congregations declare him unwelcome and in fact excommunicate him? Because of his beliefs about Biblical prophecy!

Around the same time (the 1960s), my wife and I and some other missionaries were ministering in the Philippines with what some folks call the premillennial, a cappella Churches of Christ. (I hate labels, for they tend to build walls rather than bridges; but sometimes they seem unavoidable. I hasten to add that we do not draw lines over these issues, and we try not to give undue emphasis to them.) At one of the provincial congregations we had established years earlier, some missionaries from another sector of the Churches of Christ distributed to the members a paper entitled "Premillennialism." It was three legal-size pages in length, typed single space. Among many other assertions it claimed that premillennialism "denies that Christ is reigning now...minimizes the gospel, belittles the church, revokes the great commission, nullifies salvation to Gentiles now, and makes the first coming of Christ a failure." All of that was news to us, for each accusation was totally false as far as we were concerned. We neither denied, belittled nor nullified as we were accused of doing. The paper ended with the statement, all in capital letters, "ONE CANNOT BELIEVE THE THEORIES OF PRE-MILLENNIALISM AND AT THE SAME TIME BELIEVE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST." Since there is no salvation apart from faith in the Gospel of "Christ and him crucified" -- draw your own conclusion!

In his excellent biography of J. N. Armstrong, founding president of Harding College, L. C. Sears comments: "It may seem unbelievable to many that friendships could break up over what Jesus intends to do when he returns to earth, especially since human opinions will probably in no way alter his plans. But R. H. Boll's view, that Jesus on his return would rule over the earth for a thousand years (the millennium) before the final destruction of the forces of evil, was anathema to many. In the heat of emotion some forgot all Christian love and forbearance." (For Freedom, by L. C. Sears, 213f.)

Debates were held -- sometimes with ugly bitterness. A number of churches split wide open. Even families experienced tension and hostilities. ("She's left the Lord's Church by marrying that premillennialist!")
 

How did such an unspeakably tragic situation arise? From around 1915-1930, Churches of Christ in various places became agitated over differing prophetic views taught among them. Historic premillennialism had been taught by various men like Lard, Brents and Harding. Dispensational premillennialism was spreading at large; the Scofield Reference Bible had been published in 1909 and a number were finding its literal interpretations attractive -- had not the Stone-Campbell movement always stressed letting the Bible mean what it says? Others still clung to the optimistic post-millennialism which Alexander Campbell had usually espoused. But after World War I, the depression, etc., many turned from that position to amillennialism (or more accurately, "realized millennialism": the millennium is now, between Christ's 1st and 2nd comings).

But during that period (1915-1930), though unpleasant tensions arose from time to time, almost everyone believed that such disagreements should not sever fellowship nor disturb harmonious relations between those who differed. A written debate that was published in The Gospel Advocate in l928 between pre-mill R. H. Boll and a-mill H. Leo Boles demonstrated this fact. In the closing remarks by Boll he said, "The avowed purpose of this debate was, not to mark lines and partisan distinctions, but...to foster good will and brotherliness....To my honored respondent, Brother H. Leo Boles, I wish to express my gratitude for all kind and brotherly utterance in the course of the discussion....I wish to express my kindliest personal feelings toward my respondent." And Boles replied, "Brother Boll and I hold many things in common --enough to fellowship each other as brethren in the Lord....I believe him to be sincere, pious, and a cultured Christian gentleman....Our differences do not keep me from esteeming him very highly as a brother in Christ Jesus."

But during the 1930s a different spirit arose and became widespread. In his book, L. C. Sears writes that a group of preachers was "determined to disfellowship, not merely Boll and all who believed with him, but even all who disagreed with Boll but who refused to disfellowship him. Pressure was brought against preachers, the religious journals, and [Harding College] to 'line up.' Two radical new papers sprang up to lead in the elimination of Boll and all who would not disfellowship him. Because of [J. N.] Armstrong's outspoken defence of the Christian's freedom of conscience and freedom to teach, he became the constant target of this group [though he did not agree with Boll]. All the religious journals, as well as the colleges, had for months felt the pressure of the group who wanted to exclude from the church all who believed in a millennium or even tolerated those who did." (281 & 330) By 1939 a moderate editor suggested that all the pre-mill preachers agree to quit talking or writing about the millennium and related matters for some time, in exchange for full fellowship and acceptance in all the churches. He hoped that the furor would die down and that later on all "would once again be free to teach what they believe they find in the Word of God."

But Boll replied, "Would it not be adopting a bad principle which might lead to, no one knows what extremes of official censorship and creed-making in the church, if a man in Christ had to keep silent on some parts of Scripture in order to preserve fellowship? And who could say just where the line would run, and what should not be mentioned? But as I have often stated, as a free man under Christ, I would be glad to use consideration, and in all my teaching to confine myself faithfully to the declarations found in God's word." (Sears, 278) I can testify, as one who grew up under R. H. Boll's teaching till I was eighteen, that he was loving and positive, never harsh nor combative. He urged us to be Bereans. I don't remember his ever mentioning in sermon or class that some preachers were fiercely opposing and slandering him and misrepresenting his views. Some members at his congregation knew nothing of the conflict. Yet the bitter attacks on him continued, and the division deepened.
 

There are many different interpretations of prophetic scriptures. (See the addendum at the end for examples.) But Christians have disagreed over many other Biblical subjects too, without necessarily dividing. And for approximately a century the Stone-Campbell movement agreed to disagree agreeably on these prophetic issues. Why, then, during the 1900s did these differences lead to churches splitting up, to brothers in Christ breaking fellowship and rending the body of Christ?

To answer that question is partly easy and partly hard. The easy answer is this: it resulted from sin. "Dissensions, factions and discord" are works of the sinful nature (Gal. 5:19ff, NIV). Other translations use synonyms like "party intrigues" and "a contentious temper" (NEB), "strife" and "party spirit" (RSV), "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in our own little group" (Living Bible)! The Jerusalem Bible puts it thus: "When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious:...feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy...." And Peterson's paraphrase, "The Message," uses such blunt modern synonyms as "cutthroat competition," and "depersonalizing everyone into a rival."

Paul makes the same point in 1 Cor.3:1-4. "...You are still unspiritual. Isn't that obvious from all the jealousy and wrangling that there is among you, from the way that you go on behaving like ordinary people?" (Jerus.Bib.) How sad it is to reiterate examples of such attitudes in our churches' history. Not only factionalism but also dishonesty and the dirty tricks of power politics were too often at work. We quote again from the biography of J. N. Armstrong. He wrote, "I have never felt that [the millennium] was important enough to teach; hence, in my 45 years of active preaching I have never spoken on the subject." Nevertheless he was repeatedly accused of being a secret sympathizer and thus a false teacher!

And that wasn't all that happened: "Armstrong's speeches over the radio and his letters answering questions were constantly misrepresented, so that he often hesitated to answer a letter. 'Some things I have written in the last few years in letters and otherwise have been ruthlessly treated, and I have been made to say or mean what I did not say and never dreamed of saying, so that I am nearly afraid to put out anything lest I be abused'....Hundreds who believed as he did [regarding freedom and love despite disagreement] were afraid to speak out. The unchristian attitudes were reflected chiefly in the religious journals, which in turn scared into submission local leaders and preachers. "A friend wrote Armstrong, 'It seems our papers have lost all sense of justice and fairness. I've tried and tried and tried till my soul is almost worn out to see that our paper here stays on a high plane. But in spite of all this, [the paper's manager] lets the old heads slash at this one and that one, and then they edit your replies and make you say what they want you to say in reply." (288ff.)
 

Now we return to the question, Why did this war over prophecy and freedom to teach one's views erupt during the 1900s, when such differing beliefs had existed for nearly a century without provoking such hard feelings? And when freedom to disagree was highly prized in the early decades of our movement? There may be several reasons (some of them sociological), but it seems to me that the major cause was the increase in legalism among the Churches of Christ. Studies such as Bill Love's book, The Core Gospel, show that through the generations of the Stone-Campbell movement there has been a continuing decline in preaching God's grace and Christ's cross. Love concluded, "Our focus moved from Christ crucified to his church." In other words, we thought less and less about God's amazing grace and our wonderful Savior. And we concentrated more and more on how wonderful Christ's church is (meaning "us," of course), and how right we are about its name, worship, organization, the steps required to get into it, etc. What we do for God came to overshadow what He does for us! And that is legalism.

Legalism nearly always results in sectarianism and strife. Our bitter bickering and blacklisting were rooted in the feeling that salvation depends on being doctrinally correct! "How could God save a person who believed wrong doctrines?!" And so churches were purged to keep them doctrinally pure and their members saved.

How sad that many leaders then (and now?) knew little of God's grace, and the assurance that comes from salvation-not-because-of-our-good-works-but-despite-our-bad-works. Perhaps you reply, "Shall we believe error then, that grace may abound?" God forbid! But if eternal life depends on knowledge that is both perfect and complete, not one of us will make it. Will the Lord save only those who hold the correct view about the 1,000 years -- whichever view that may be? Just to ask such a question makes a travesty of God's Good News.
 

How can we be healed of this plague? 1st, by realizing and admitting it is sinful, nothing less. If discord and dissensions are works of the flesh, they are sins. 2nd, as with any other sins, repentance and confession are needed (Prov.28:13; 1 Jn.1:9), trusting in the mercy of the Father who stands with arms outstretched (Rom.10:21). 3rd, we need to be filled with the Holy Spirit, who alone produces the fruit of love, patience, kindness and meekness. Our history shows clearly that those who were most divisive knew and taught least about the indwelling, transforming ministry of the Holy Spirit as well as about the grace of God. Only God by His Spirit can enable us to understand and put into practice such major passages on unity as John 17, Rom.14:1-15:7, 1 Cor.12:4-27, James 3:13-18, and especially Eph.4:1-16 with its list of seven onenesses possessed by all true believers, and its teaching about the unity of the Spirit (which we should seek to maintain, for it exists already) and the unity of the faith (which we should seek to attain by study, prayer, and fellowship that listens with love).

4th, we must seek to tear down walls built high by legalism and sectarianism (both in our own and former generations), and build bridges in their place. We must continue to do what the brave, free minority among us did in the past. One example was R. H. Boll. For years the independent Christian Churches ("instrumental") around Chicago invited him to expound the Scriptures at their Cedar Lake conferences, and he gladly did so. When he addressed them, out of respect for him they sang a cappella (though he did not demand nor even ask for them to do so). Such was the love between them. He also dared to teach in Disciples of Christ, Methodist and Presbyterian churches as opportunities arose. As long as he was left free to preach God's Word without restriction, he accepted such invitations. (So did Alexander Campbell, by the way!) As Marvin Phillips aptly expressed it, "Don't judge what I preach by where I preach it!"

A more recent example of creative bridge-building occurred in Lubbock, Texas in 1992. The elders of the Quaker Ave. Church of Christ, a non-Sunday School congregation, penned a document which perhaps ranks with the memorable documents of Stone and the Campbells. It was a letter to the elders of the Broadway Church of Christ, a "mainline" church. The Quaker Ave. elders expressed grief

over the separations within the Body of Christ. While there have been steps taken in recent years to move away from the animosities of the past, there are still settled divisions among us....We are aware of the debates and strife of the past that often led to our divisions. Most of us were not here then and we do not feel we can appropriately judge just who was responsible for the division. But we are convinced that we the living are responsible for doing whatever is possible to bring about greater unity in our day. We want you to know that we all are genuinely sorry for whatever led to division. While we ourselves may not have contributed to the original division, some of us have, in our own lifetime, been guilty of attitudes that have maintained it. We repent of that and seek the forgiveness of God and all our brethren....

At the same time, we are thankful for many good things in our particular heritage, and the good men and women who engendered and cultivated our faith....We do not renounce our fathers in the faith. We simply wish to acknowledge and embrace the whole family of God, and thereby renounce sectarianism....We want to be known as a people who love all the brethren. We believe that honest differences need not divide us, that we can enjoy sweet fellowship in all that we mutually hold dear while allowing for some diversity in interpretation and practice. Our plea for reconciliation is not by any means a repudiation on our position on Sunday Schools, but a recognition that such issues are less important than the blood of Jesus that made us one.

What we are asking from you is the right hand of fellowship in the great work of the kingdom....Let us proclaim together the grace which makes us one in Jesus. And let us together extend the same spirit of fellowship to all other brethren.... [End of my excerpts.]

We have made 4 Suggestions for Overcoming Unloving Divisiveness: 1)Admit that it is a sinful "work of the flesh." 2)Repent, and confess to God and anyone else who has been wounded by it. 3)Seek the fullness of the Holy Spirit, by thirsting and trusting Christ for this promised blessing (Jn.7:37-39, Eph.5:19). 4)Take practical steps to tear down walls and build bridges among God's people. In addition, here are J. N. Armstrong's 4 recommendations -- practices we need to follow if we are to preserve both freedom and unity: "It is right for each of us to [1]present his honest convictions concerning any difference of teaching he may hold. Having done this, let us leave it with that, and [2]not try to force our teaching upon each other. An effort to force always produces opposition, strife, bitterness, and finally division. What we need is to [3]love one another and [4]magnify our agreements." (Sears, 277)

There's nothing really new in these 8 principles. They are similar to what the apostles did at "the Jerusalem council" to heal tense relations caused by doctrinal disagreements between congregations (Acts 15). And they are similar to what Paul taught to heal tense relations caused by practical disagreements within a congregation (Rom.14). And God still works through these principles today.
 

Thus far we have mentioned many examples of dreadful dogmatism and divisiveness, and only a few instances of loving unity-despite-differences. Now we gladly look at some more cases of the latter, heart-warming variety. When Armstrong, Boll and others studied at the Nashville Bible School during the 1890s, "it was well understood that E. G. Sewell and Dr. Brents differed on the appointment of elders, on the millennium, and on other questions. So it was understood of Lipscomb and Harding, Taylor and Lipscomb, and others. Each freely discussed his side of the controversial point. That any one would consider another 'unsound,' 'disloyal,' or unworthy of the most hearty fellowship never entered one's mind. Such an idea would not have been tolerated for a second." "The thing that is now causing trouble," wrote Armstrong in later, trying times, "is this divisive spirit, this self-righteous, dogmatic, intolerant spirit, that made a determined effort to divide an otherwise united brotherhood....As a result some have 'lined up'; some 'shut up' and others suffered martyrdom for their convictions." "It's not our differences that hurt, but our manner of differing." (Sears, 185 & 86)

In those good earlier days under James Harding and David Lipscomb in Nashville, "a regular college activity was a meeting each Monday night in which young men discussed any questions of interest. Often on controversial questions leaders on both sides of the issue were brought in for a discussion or a series of discussions. At such times, though men spoke their convictions freely and vigorously, and emotions might run high, the meetings usually closed in a spirit of friendship and goodwill....In such free discussions [Armstrong] was learning to differ from others even heatedly and yet with humility, to respect and love his opponent--experiences which influenced profoundly his whole life." (32f.) It was only natural, then, that in the schools where he later taught and presided, he promoted similar attitudes and activities. If only such principles of loving unity-in-diversity had prevailed more widely, instead of the belligerent "We're gonna stomp out anybody that disagrees with us" attitude that became so widespread -- what a difference there would be throughout the Churches of Christ today.

A former student of Armstrong's at Harding College told how Brother Armstrong "spent a summer at Wheaton College [a wellknown evangelical, transdenominational school] and upon his return to Harding gave a glowing report of the spiritual lives he observed among the faculty and students at Wheaton." (Letter from W. L. Wilson to Restoration Review, 2/'88.) Which reminds us that the original goal of the Restoration Movement was not to unite various fragments of the Restoration Movement(!), but rather to unite "Christians among the sects." After 190 years we have not gained but lost ground, and are at minus-10 struggling to get back to square #1. To get to square #1 will be a gain, not a loss! But at least we're not still back at minus-40. Praise God, progress is being made.
 

One day while our Lord was preaching, His mother and brothers arrived. Someone told Him they were there, and He replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?...Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother" (Mk.3:31ff). Those are significant words, worth pondering.
 

Paul wrote, "Because you are sons [of God], God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father.'" Again he wrote, "You received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'" (Gal.4:6; Rom.8:15.) Does it not necessarily follow that the Spirit of sonship is also the spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood? Does not the Spirit who emboldens us to cry out "Daddy! Father!" to the Monarch of Heaven, also constrain us to cry out "My brother! my sister!" to all other people in whom He dwells? May we believe this. And may we experience it too -- that God may be glorified, that all His people everywhere may be strengthened, and that the perishing world may be reached with His Good News.

There are several answers to that question. 1st, since such a large proportion of the Bible is prophetic in nature (or was when it was written), a vast amount of study is required just to become familiar with it, much less to grasp it in depth. Depending on one's definition of prophecy, and one's interpretation of it, estimates very from 1/6 to 1/3 of the Bible as being predictive. Whatever the proportion, there is a lot of material to master. 2nd, the field has many topics and subtopics: Christ's return; antichrist; the endtime great tribulation; the final Day of the Lord; the relationship between Israel and the Church; resurrection; judgment; the king-dom of God; the millennium; eternal destiny of the lost and of the saved; "signs of the times;" etc. Whew! 3rd, much symbolism and figurative language is used, especially in the apocalyptic-style writings of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. 4th, various schools of thought compete with one another in trying to explain such symbols: the preterists, historicists, idealists, futurists, etc.

5th, even within each of the 4 major systems of interpreting Biblical prophecy (historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism), there are wide variations. Let me illustrate this point from our movement's history. While Alexander Campbell was usually a post-mill, a number of other preachers were pre-mill in conviction: Barton Stone, James Barclay, Moses Lard, T. W. Brents, James A. Harding, Daniel Sommer, and R. H. Boll, among others. All these looked for Christ and His church to reign on earth after his second coming. Yet they differed among themselves regarding the prophecies related to Israel. Stone, Barclay, Sommer and Boll all believed the Jews would be restored as a nation to the land of promise (based on passages like Jer.33:14-26, Ezek.37:15-28, and Zech. 8:7-8; 10:6-12) and also be converted to God and to faith in Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer (Jer.31:31-34, Ezek.36:22-36, Rom.11:11-32, most especially v.26). [Notice the three different issues which have been mentioned so far.] Interestingly, Alexander Campbell and Robert Milligan believed the same as they did about Israel, and so did Jacob Creath and J. W. McGarvey--whose millennial views I could not discover. But Moses Lard believed only in the Jews' conversion, not their restoration to the land. And Brents and probably Harding believed in neither, but that Israel had forfeited all of God's promises by their unbelief and rejection of Jesus (Matt.21:33-45). Another example of various beliefs relates to "the great tribulation" (or "distress"--NIV; Matt.24:21,29). Of the seven pre-mills mentioned above, only Boll and probably Barclay believed in a "pre-tribulation rapture" of the church, seven years before Christ's coming to smash the Antichrist and to reign on earth. The rest seem to have believed in Christ's "post-tribulation" coming -- the historic-premill position.

Such differences in interpretation should not deter our study of prophecy. We might feel, "What's the use if there is so little agreement among outstanding Bible students?" Yet like all the rest of Scripture, the prophecies are God-breathed and profitable. Nevertheless, the differing interpretations we have seen ought to make us humble, tolerant and open-minded. Remember Brother Armstrong's advice? He counselled us to "magnify our agreements." That's important, and for that reason I love Rev.11:16-18. Please read it. Despite our numerous disagreements on prophecy, almost all Christians agree with the summary statement set forth in this passage: 1)God has all power, now. 2)Some day He will "take" that power, i.e. begin to reign to a fuller extent than He does at present. He now overrules evil; He will then destroy evil. 3)He is a God of righteousness and wrath. 4)He will raise and judge the dead. 5)He will reward His servants. 6)He will destroy the impenitent. Since we agree on all these basics, let's not get too uptight about our differences. (Though of course I wish you would agree with me so you'd be right!) May our Lord give you grace and peace, my dear brother or sister in Christ Jesus and fellow-student of His Word. With John let us pray, "Come, Lord Jesus." 

[For further study we recommend The Meaning of the Millennium, edited by Clouse, pub. by InterVarsity Press. The 4 main views are each presented by a leading advocate, with much differing-but-respectful interaction by all the authors after each presentation.]

[Note: The important biography of J. N. Armstrong, For Freedom, was published by Sweet Publishing Co. in 1969, but is now out of print. Its lessons are still desperately needed. Who will reprint it?]