The Growth of Division

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     On September 7, 1809, Thomas Campbell presented his "Declaration and Address" at a meeting of "The Christian Association of Washington" in Pennsylvania. Mr. Campbell was a Presbyterian and so were most of the others who were present, but the document which was read and approved set forth principles which were destined to cut across all sectarian lines and give the greatest impetus to Christianity since apostolic days. It constituted the foundation of what was described by Alexander Campbell as a project to unite the Christians in all sects.

     Today those of us who are heirs of that restoration movement constitute one of the most divided religious classifications in America. Recently this writer visited representatives of nine different factions in one Texas city. Three of these employ instrumental music in their corporate worship, six of them do not, but not one of the groups has any working relationship with any of the others. In Dallas thirteen distinct factions were catalogued and there may be others. True, some of these are small and insignificant with respect to the number of adherents but they cannot be discounted on that basis. The situation is best illustrated by a statement made by a rather eccentric Texas preacher who is now deceased. Someone who contemplated a move wrote to ask if he could find "a loyal church" in the new location. The preacher wrote back, "There are ten loyal churches in that area and neither one will have a thing to do with any of the others."

     What forces have acted upon the brethren to bring about this sad state of affairs? What are the tributaries which have contributed to this flood tide of factionalism? What caused the will to unite to give way to the will to divide? We must not expect to find a simple answer to our complex problem. It is possible that we can never know all of the factors involved. No one can point to a specific date in our history and say that it marks the beginning of our disintegration into partisan warfare.

     Many have undertaken an analysis of this kind in the past. The literature that has been produced upon the subject forms no small accumulation. On what grounds do we again cover the same field with any optimistic hope that we may discover that which others failed to see? Let it be understood that our judgment is not infallible. Our deductions may prove to be incorrect. We do not offer the result of our research to our readers in any dogmatic or arbitrary spirit. We simply share with those who are among the concerned ones certain views which have crystallized as a result of our study. If there is any possibility of our contribution producing results for good it will stem from the following considerations.

     1. Many of those who have done research on the outgrowth of the restoration movement have sought justification for

[Page 2]

the party with which they were affiliated as opposed to other parties. They have regarded all others as factional and themselves as constituting the church of God. We no longer represent any segment, section or splinter growing out of this movement. We freely acknowledge our own factional attitude in the past and apologize for it. Far from delving into our history to justify our past conduct, we begin by admitting that there is no scriptural justification for it. We are searching for the development of the spirit of factionalism, not so much to accuse others of being motivated by it as to eliminate it from our own hearts and lives.

     2. We believe it is a fallacy to conclude that we are divided over the things which have been credited with being the cause of our divisions. This is made apparent when we consider that our brethren have seriously differed about certain things which were much more important than some which have been credited with division, yet they have remained together as relates to those things. Too, they did not divide when the so-called divisive things were introduced but labored in mutual brotherhood for many years until agitation drove them apart. Almost every writer has proceeded upon the basis that the introduction of certain things, called innovations, created the divisions. It will be our thesis that the actual division was wrought by the party spirit. Unity is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:3); disunity is a fruit of the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). Most of those things to which division has been attributed would have caused no real schism among the pioneers of the restoration movement. There first had to come a change of spirit or attitude before division could result.

     3. As we view it many of those who have written in the past on all sides of the issues have been guilty of over-simplification. As an example we cite the once common question, "Who drove the wedge that split the log?" In this illustration the log represents the church, but in the first great cleavage in the restoration movement, as in every other one since, there has been disagreement over what constituted the wedge. Those who opposed instrumental music affirmed it was the wedge; those who favored it declared the wedge was the disposition to bind as law that which God had not bound. Fervent orators have stood on each side of the riven log and pointed the finger of accusation at each other. Meanwhile the log remains divided. We confess that we are not so much concerned about who split it as we are about who is going to get it back together. The unity of the log is the important thing. Arguing about who split it may be interesting diversion but it is secondary in importance. God will adequately take care of the guilty one or ones!

     However, we cannot resist the impulse to look at a few aspects of this example. We suggest that the identity of the log may be as hazy with some of our brethren as is that of the wedge. It is generally assumed that the log is the church but it was the disciple brotherhood growing out of the restoration movement that was split over instrumental music. That brotherhood did not necessarily constitute the church of God in its fulness. The church is composed of every called out person in the world. Not all of them were affiliated with the disciple brotherhood when the log was split! This fact was well understood by those who constituted that brotherhood in those days. The concept has been lost by most of the splinters since.

     If a log is split in half, both halves are a part of the original, and will always remain so. They are related to each other by cells and tissues in a way they can be related to no other trunk or tree in the world. But when "the log" was split each side immediately began to treat the other half as if it were another or foreign log. No relationship was acknowledged, no affinity sought, and the two portions moved farther from each other through the years. It is our contention that before unity can be effected there has to be restored to those who constitute both parts a deep sense of relationship, a mutuality of feeling. If both sides con-

[Page 3]

centrate their sole interest on the wedge and are oblivious of each other there will be no energy expended to produce union. If they consider each other they can at least lessen the gap. It is possible that a recognition of brotherhood can be restored even while the wedge remains in place. Many a tree has for years existed with a knife or scythe imbedded in its trunk. Perhaps we need to suffer awhile from "pricks in our eyes, and thorns in our sides" (Num. 33:55) to teach us the value of respect for the authority of God and love for each other. But we should not suffer in stolid silence when we can remove the pricks and thorns.

     I cannot leave this analogy without another observation or two. Those who have sought diligently to affix the blame for splitting the log have been much more concerned about who did it than about the fact that it was done. It is not so much the unity of the log as the identity of the splitter that has interested them. This is proven by the fact that each half has not hesitated to split again and again under almost any provocation. The instrumental brethren have used the cleaver a half dozen times while the non-instrumental brethren have apparently proceeded on the basis that once a log is split the thing to do is to make kindling wood out of your part as soon as possible. If this fragmentation continues the restoration brotherhood will be reduced to a pile of divergent splinters. "The churches of Christ" will be so many toothpicks.

     4. Most of those who have written have begun with a false premise about fellowship. They have been misled into assuming that fellowship was something extended or withdrawn by the church. Contrary to this view, fellowship is a state or condition into which we are called by God through the Good News concerning Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:9). In reality the body of Christ is the fellowship. This is illustrated in the usage of the word koinonia in 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (koinonia) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (koinonia) of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread."

     Fellowship is not endorsement. It is not unanimity of opinion or conformity in interpretation. We do not come into the fellowship because we see everything alike, but because we are in fellowship we strive to see things alike. Fellowship is a reality into which we are introduced by God, harmony is an ideal toward which we strive in that relationship. Because of confusion at this juncture those who have written about the restoration have only served to make the rifts wider. With a proper understanding of fellowship we can see factionalism in its true light and recognize it as a sin not to be condoned or sanctioned.

     5. All too often developments have been treated as isolated incidents wholly removed from the frame of reference in which they occurred. In our complex world few things are unrelated and wholly unique. The circumstances obtaining at the time when things are introduced have much to do with their acceptance or rejection. That which was pressed to the point of division in one generation might not be given passing notice in another. Our religious convictions are not segregated from our other mental concepts. Life is not a series of unrelated thoughts and actions. Social, economic, scientific and moral factors all combine with our religious views and help to motivate our thinking. It is not wholly by accident that instrumental music, for example, became a problem when an industrial revolution was transforming American from a pioneer status to a more cultural level, nor that division followed close on the heels of the Civil War which had frequently pitted brother against brother and encouraged sectional feeling. This does not justify either the introduction of instrumental music or the division resulting from the attitudes toward it, but it may help to explain both. We propose to weigh all factors within the scope of our limited knowledge and

[Page 4]

fit them into the puzzling picture when we can.

     6. Many of those who have written on the history of the restoration movement imply that our present condition is incurable. While all regard the causing of division as a grave misdemeanor in the sight of God, it is assumed that when division occurs it has to be accepted as an irreparable state. This I refuse to believe. It is unthinkable that the power which drew us together when we were aliens has not the strength to bring us back together once we are brethren. It is not only the creation of division which is a sin, but the division which is created is a violation of God's plan and purpose for mankind. No one can be indifferent about division between brethren and be faithful to the trust imposed upon us by the Father.

     I refuse to regard division among brethren as a normal state any more than I regard disease as the normal condition for a physical body. I deny that we should supinely accept the current state of affairs and make the best of it. The fear engendered by the party spirit which has intimidated us in the past should be shaken off with the spirit of complacency. It is time to move forward, to fight factionalism and to wage peace. It is as wrong to perpetuate division as to begin it. We sin when we adopt the philosophy that we are obligated to perpetuate the feuds our fathers started. We are obligated to stop them! Our writing on the rise of factionalism will be in confidence and hope that we can help to rectify the situation. Because something must be done there is something that can be done! Brighter days can come. The dark clouds of disunity can be dispelled. The power of God can effectually work in us.

     When Thomas Campbell read the "Declaration and Address" there were only seventeen states which had been admitted to the Union. Ohio was the last to be granted statehood before that time. Beyond its confines to the west lay a great wilderness area, although pioneer settlements, some quite populous, dotted the region between Ohio and the Mississippi River. The first Protestant Church in Missouri Territory had been established but three years before, a congregation of Baptists planted by David Green, near the town of Jackson. Indian tribes still freely roamed and hunted over the area. It was seventeen years later that the Kansas, Shawnee and Iowa tribes were removed from the state. The conditions of that day can best be described by Elder Samuel Rogers, the second preacher to bring the Restoration plea into Missouri.

     "Not long after I settled in Ohio, a number moved from Bourbon county, Kentucky, and settled on Ramsey's Creek, in Pike county, Missouri. Their Macedonian cry had come to the ears of Brother James Hughes and myself, and we determined to go to their assistance. We made ready for the journey and set out, prepared to take soldier's fare on the route, as, most of the country through which we had to pass was yet a wilderness. We were both fond of tea; so we carried a coffee pot, tin cups, and a tea canister with us. At each settlement through which we passed, we would procure provisions enough to last us to the next one. The settlements in Indiana and Illinois were so far apart that we were compelled to camp out most of the way. I had learned to cook in the army, and now made it my business to prepare the meal, while Brother Hughes unsaddled our horses and hobbled them out for the night. I generally had a tin-cupful of strong tea for each of us, and bread and meat sufficient to satisfy the demands of nature but this was all."

     Following the work in Pike county, Hughes decided to return to Ohio, but Rogers resolved to go to Howard county and visit with Thomas McBride who was the first preacher to bring the cause of

[Page 5]

reformation into Missouri. Here is his description of the lonely journey.

     "By the aid of a pocket compass which I always carried with me in those days, I made the first day's journey without much difficulty, and was fortunate in finding, about sundown, a hunter's camp, in a beautiful grove, convenient to water. Here I determined to stay for the night. I unsaddled my good horse, Paddy, hobbled him, and turned him out to make his supper on the fine grass that was still green in the grove. With my flint and steel I soon kindled a fire; then I prepared my supper, after the eating of which I was ready for bed. My saddle bags were my pillow; I slept on my saddle-blanket and covered myself with the blanket I rode upon. I slept tolerably well until midnight, when I was aroused by the howling of a pack of wolves in the vicinity of the camp. I arose and renewed my fire, knowing that this would keep them at a respectful distance, and again I retired to rest. At break of day I was up, and soon having my tea ready, I ate a hearty breakfast, saddled Paddy, and was off. I entered a vast prairie just as the sun was rising."

     The pioneer heralds of restoration carried the message into the rude dwellings of the hardy souls who were hewing home sites for their families out of dense forests. Many meetings were held in the open in groves of trees, some were conducted in homes of the settlers where eager listeners sat on benches clustered around the fireplace. Frequently a schoolhouse was used for the gathering. Here is the description of one such edifice as given by a chronicler of those early days:

     "After many consultations and many (delightful seasons of worship in their cabins, they determined to build a school house which would also answer for the purpose of a house of worship. These sturdy young farmers, with some of their new neighbors, felled the forest trees and created a commodious log cabin, covered with boards weighted down with poles, daubed with mud, floored with puncheons, seated with benches made of split logs supported by pegs driven into the round parts of the logs. The window was made by the removal of a log from one side, a rude sash was inserted and oiled foolscap paper was substituted for glass. The chimney, which was wide and deep, was built of split logs and sticks, and daubed with mud or clay. The one door was made of boards and hinged and latched with a wooden contrivance which answered the purpose admirably.
     The school house completed, no teacher was at hand, and they were compelled to await his coming. He came ere long in the person of an Irish pedagogue, fresh from the sod, whose name was Allan Bass, whose accomplishments were that he could 'read, write and cipher' as far as to 'the rule of three,' at which point any precocious boy that dared to reach it was 'turned back.' His only fault, so far as now remembered, was that he would get drunk on Friday evening, remaining so till Monday morning, and it was often suspected that he was not duly sober then."

     So long as these primitive conditions obtained questions such as that of organized mission effort and the use of instrumental music did not trouble the disciples. They were too busy taking the Good News to all and sundry to take the time to stop and form an organization. At first the question of who should go did not enter into the picture as there was a deep feeling that every person who heard was under a divine obligation to share what he had learned. They took literally the admonition, "Let him that heareth say, come." There was an eagerness upon the part of the preachers to go into "the regions beyond." Every unevangelized area was looked upon as a direct challenge. They reacted to invitations of the believers to remain among them and labor as did the Master, "And the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them; but he said to them, 'I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose, "(Luke 4:42, 43).

     The question of using an instrument in the corporate worship did not trouble them. There were no instruments in most communities. The various denominations did not use instrumental music in their worship and most of them were to undergo some difficulties when it was introduced. Peter Cartwright, the famed Methodist circuit rider, who was just three years older than Alexander Campbell wrote:

     "We had no Missionary Society; no Sunday School Society; no church papers; no Bible or Tract Society; no

[Page 6]

colleges, seminaries, academies, or universities; all the efforts to get up colleges under the patronage of the Methodist Episcopal Church in these United States and territories, were signal failures. We had no pewed churches, no choirs, no organs, in a word, we had no instrumental music in our churches anywhere."

     Many of the original reformers came from Presbyterian ranks in which the use of instrumental music was then opposed. In 1888, John L. Girardeau, Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, South Carolina, wrote in his book "Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church" as follows:

     "The non-prelatic churches, Independent and Presbyterian, began their development on the American continent without instrumental music. They followed the English Puritans and the Scottish Church, which had adopted the principles of the Calvinistic Reformed Church. How the organ came to be gradually introduced into them it were bootless to inquire. They began right, but have more and more departed from the simple genius of Christian worship. On what grounds they have done this it would be well for them to stop and inquire. For if there be any force in argument their present condition cannot be maintained. It is a clear departure from the practice of the church, both early and reformed."

     Another thing which militated against advocacy of instrumental music in worship by the restoration pioneers was the publicity given in their day to the division occurring in the Jewish synagogue over the question. These men were already familiar with the fact that the worship of the primitive ekklesia took its form from the synagogue rather than from the temple. Six years after Thomas Campbell first read the "Declaration and Address," on June 14, 1815, Rabbi Israel Jacobson in Berlin, Germany, introduced an organ into the synagogue worship for the first time. This created a furore in the Jewish community and feeling ran so high that a petition was made to the emperor, Frederic Wilhelm III, to close the synagogue, which he did. The breach widened between the reformed and the orthodox, and the former aided and abetted the growing schism by building their first temple at Hamburg, which they dedicated on October 18, 1818. In it they installed a fine organ but employed a non-Jewish organist.

     These actions abroad threw American Jewry into a ferment and provided the chief source of conversation in the Jewish homes and of discussion in the synagogues. The more liberal element, seeking to divorce themselves from traditional practices and forms were outspoken, and since many of them were prominent in business circles their controversies were sometimes aired in the press. In 1840, Rabbi Gustav Posnanski of Temple Beth Elohim, in Charleston, South Carolina, asked for a vote of the congregation on whether or not to install an organ. The vote was 46 for doing so and 40 against. The protest vote was chiefly from the older members. When the organ was brought in the dissenters entered suit in court for redress of grievances. The decision was rendered in favor of the majority and an appeal was taken to the State Supreme Court. The decision of the lower court was upheld in an opinion handed down in 1846. In this opinion written by Justice Butler, the court held that it was powerless to make decisions as to the merits of religious controversy and must depend upon the will of the majority of the members. The minority group then withdrew from the others and organized another congregation.

     This controversy is especially important to the objective historian for several reasons. First, one of the principal arguments used in the courts by the orthodox Jews against instrumental music in worship was that it was an innovation borrowed from the "Christian" church. This was an exact reversal of the plea made against adoption of instrumental music in Christian worship. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica wrote, "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." There is really no conflicting element in what appears to be divergent views. The worship of the ekklesia was patterned after that of the synagogue in which the instrument was not used. In-

[Page 7]

strumental music was used in the temple service along with a priestly caste, burning of incense, sacerdotal garments, holy water, etc.

     When the Roman church finally became an open admixture of paganism, Judaism and Christianity, many of the forms of ritualistic Judaism were adopted. Meanwhile the synagogues continued as they were until more modern members, affected by their contact with Christian elements undertook to alter the worship procedures. Thus, the Orthodox Jews were not in conflict with the early Christians in their statements, for when they affirmed that instrumental music was borrowed from the "Christian" church they had reference to Christianity after it had adopted Jewish liturgical practices.

     Another important feature of the trial in South Carolina was that it confirmed with reference to introduction of instrumental music into religious worship, the precedent set in previous kindred matters, that the civil courts are powerless to rule as to the merits of religious controversy, and established the majority rule as the basis for judgment in local situations.

     That we be not further tedious let us summarize some of our own conclusions regarding the storms of contention which came to batter the forces of restoration.

1. The divisions which occurred cannot be properly evaluated if considered as isolated from the age and conditions in which they arose. They were part of a pattern. In the nineteenth century almost every Protestant religious organization suffered from strife over the question of instrumental music. The Jewish synagogues, the Presbyterian church, and the disciple brotherhood are still divided over this question and related matters.
2. It is altogether possible that if the restoration brotherhood could have survived this particular period of tension it could have remained intact. Some of those things which were then introduced might never have been introduced at all, and those which were might have been dealt with upon a more rational basis rather than upon an emotional one.
3. The transformation from a frontier and pioneer status to a more settled and cultured society, augmented as it was by the growing industrial revolution, had a profound effect upon the religious life of the people. Any period of rapid change in the life and economy of a people is fraught with great problems. This is vividly portrayed before our very eyes in the struggle of backward nations to take their place in the sun of international recognition. The development of America in the last half of the nineteenth century was without parallel in the annals of history. We still suffer from some of the decisions made during the intensity of growing pains.
4. The effect of the Civil War with its strain on family relationships and its relegation of brotherhood to a position inferior to sectional prejudice affected our forebears more than most of us realize. The proud boast that the disciple brotherhood passed through the war over slavery without dividing is only partially true. It is probable that it would be more nearly correct to say that this brotherhood did not divide openly, or that it did not divide then. That the conflict between "the Blues and the Grays" affected the future course of our brothers in the Lord can be proven beyond question by the unbiased researchist.
5. In this series we are not interested in assessing guilt. We are not especially trying to determine the right or wrong of those things which have been credited with creating schism in one of the noblest projects ever to command the attention of sinful men. Our purpose is to try and understand why brethren who labored together and loved each other very dearly could become antagonistic and fractured into parties filled with spite and venom. We believe that this was the result of the rise of a factional spirit and it is our expectation to trace those causes leading to it and help to eliminate that spirit from our lives. We must either conquer it or perish!
6. Our whole course is directed toward healing breaches rather than causing them; of binding up wounds rather than

   [Page 8]

   inflicting them; of creating unity rather than schism. In our next issue we will proceed with the analysis of those factors which produced the shameful state in which we now find ourselves. We ask that you pray for us that we may be used by the Spirit as humble instruments to further the cause of "peace on earth among men of good will."

     In our coverage of the rise of factionalism as it was augmented in dealing with problems evolved from the creation of the missionary society and introduction of instrumental music, we shall no doubt say many things which will cut across the traditional thinking of all our readers. We are not writing from a controversial standpoint and you need not agree with us to be respected as brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ. We will be content if all of us are inspired merely to re-examine our hearts and convictions in the light of what is said. It is still true as Socrates said, that "The unexamined life is not worth living." If, after honest scrutiny of what we have written, you cannot find it within your heart to concur, we shall continue to love you fervently as brethren and leave the issues with God.