Brothers at Law

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     The shady grove surrounding "the brick church" as the place was familiarly called, was filled with wagons and buggies. The teams had been unhitched and the horses were now tied by one of the reins to the rear wheels from which position it was possible for them to eat the hay thrown down in the back of the vehicles. The owners had made preparation for a lengthy stay. This Saturday, August 14, 1889, was to be a memorable one at Sand Creek. Fifty-five years the congregation had met in this vicinity, first in a log house, then in a frame house, on land belonging to Tobias Grider. But in July, 1874 James Turrentine and his wife Sarah deeded the present site to "The Trustees of the Christian Church of Sand Creek" and the brick meetinghouse costing thirteen hundred dollars had been erected.

     Great changes had taken place in many of the congregations of the reformation in Illinois since John Storm and Bushrod Henry had banded the first little group of disciples together at Sand Creek in 1834. The latter had migrated from Virginia in November, 1830, to begin preaching in Shelbyville. In July, 1831, he started a congregation with nine members in that county seat and by 1834 it had grown to seventy souls. In 1832 he set forth the principles of the restoration in Walker's settlement, and started a congregation of seven members. In two years the local Presbyterian party disbanded and all of its constituents joined the restoration movement. The tide was running high when the effort was launched in the Sand Creek community and a new log meetinghouse was erected.

     But the past half century had seen the introduction of a number of innovations. Since the missionary society had been organized at Cincinnati in 1849 there seemed a general disposition to borrow various items made popular by the sectarian world. The practice of hiring a pastor had become prevalent in city congregations, some of which resorted to various commercial schemes to raise money and even went so far as to bring instruments of music into the public worship. The congregations at Shelbyville and Windsor now had organs. They had taken their stand with the "Progressives" or "Digressives" as their opponents referred to them. But the church at Sand Creek did not waver. The brethren "pursued the even tenor of their way." They were content to remain among the "Antis" as those were dubbed who had more conservative tastes in matters religious.

     The leaders viewed with alarm the encroachment of modern methods. The question of what to do in the growing emergency formed the topic of many Sunday afternoon conferences between themselves and the brethren from Liberty congregation, another rural outpost but a few miles away. They consulted with Daniel Sommer, who lived in Indianapolis, and it was decided that a line must be drawn

[Page 2]

against the "digressive element." It was suggested that such action could be dramatized if a public declaration was issued and representatives from concurring congregations signed it in the presence of the audience. Daniel Sommer pointed out that the Restoration movement began with the "Declaration and Address" read by Thomas Campbell; now it would be saved by an "Address and Declaration" read at Sand Creek.

     It was decided that the annual August meeting would provide an unparalleled opportunity to take a stand. Visits were made to Ash Grove, Union, Mode, Green Creek, Gays and Strickland. The leaders of all these places agreed that something must be done and done quickly. Members were already going to Shelbyville and Windsor and taking up with "the foolishness of the Digressives." All agreed that Peter P. Warren was the one to write and read the statement. This aged man had preached in all of these localities. He was respected by all who revered "the old paths." Announcement was made in all of the congregations through the area that a showdown was imminent and that action of a definite nature would be taken at the August meeting at Sand Creek. There was a prospect of "fire works" if some of the Progressives from town were present but Daniel Sommer would be there to keep the situation under control.

     And now the great day had dawned. Those who had been designated as representatives by their congregations felt a sense of destiny as they hooked the teams to their wagons. They were going to take a step which ought to have been taken long ago. It was time to mark off the list of faithful brethren those who persisted in having their way regardless of what scripture taught. These delegates had already seen the draft of the address written by Peter P. Warren. As they drove along the dusty roads there came back to mind the statement, "If they do not turn away from such abominations, we can not and will not regard them as brethren." Yes, it would truly be a wonderful occasion for the people of God. It would mark the date of formal separation from the "Modern Schoolmen," as Brother Sommer designated the "innovating disciples."

     Daniel Sommer faced the large audience. There were few of them that he had not met. They had driven long distances to hear him in the past. He was the recognized defender of orthodoxy and his position was the more glamorous now that he was editor of the paper which Benjamin Franklin had started and which he employed with such vigor to battle every tendency at departure from the scriptural pattern. On this day Daniel Sommer was in his physical prime. He took great pride in stopping by the blacksmith shop and lifting with one hand a piece of iron which taxed most men to lift with both hands. His deep voice carried without a break or quaver to the remote limits of the crowd. His subject was "Innovations in the Church" and he was thoroughly conversant with the material. He left no doubt in the minds of the hearers that "there is no law human or divine, which innovators hold themselves bound to respect in dealing with those who oppose their devices." He knew of but one scriptural solution--formal division!

     Peter P. Warren arose in dignity and read the address. "It is, therefore, with the view, if possible of counteracting the usages and practices that have crept into the churches, that this effort on the part of the congregations hereafter named is made." When he finished reading, he laid the manuscript on the table which would be set the next day with the fruit of the vine and the one bread which symbolized the one body. He signed the document, and then the other Sand Creek delegates, led by A. J. Nance, came forward and affixed their signatures. Four representatives from Liberty followed. After them in succession came the delegates from the other congregations. At last division had been recognized and given official status. From henceforth brotherhood would be determined by a willingness to oppose certain things. The "Antis" were committed to a program of brotherhood by counteraction.

     At first the address made little difference. The "Progressives" in Shelbyville

[Page 3]

and Windsor continued their activities as usual. Visiting preachers coming in hurled the customary blasts at "reactionaries and obstructionists" as they called the "Antis." In private they passed around a cartoon which depicted David Lipscomb of Nashville, Tennessee, as an old woman with a broom trying to sweep back the waves of the ocean of "progress." It was freely predicted that the Restoration movement would again be united on a more liberal basis when a few "old fogies" in country churches died off. Unity would come more quickly by "funerals" than by fighting. The missionary society would convert the world to Jesus and usher in a virtual millennium. Such documents as the "Sand Creek Address" were temporary irritations that had to be endured by a progressive movement.

     At Sand Creek and Liberty no difference was noted. There was always a relapse after the excitement attendant upon the "big meeting" in August. The farmers were working early and late getting in their fall crops. When they gathered on Sunday farming conditions made up the chief topic of conversation before and after services. No reference was ever made publicly to the address. When someone came forward during the "invitation song" he was merely asked, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?" No one was ever asked about his position on innovations as a requisite to baptism. Gradually, everything settled back to its normal state with the preachers publicly denouncing the innovations, and the membership talking mostly about corn and alfalfa. Only in the homes of the leaders where visiting preachers stayed was there animated talk about "developments." Gradually, the subject of the organ was supplanted by discussion of the founding of Nashville Bible School by David Lipscomb. A "new digression" had started among those opposed to instrumental music and it had now stolen the limelight. The last decade of the fading nineteenth century passed slowly into history.

     Almost at the threshold of the new century a series of events took place which were to kindle the fires of the party spirit seven times hotter than they had ever burned before. This time it was the "Progressives" who took the initiative and demonstrated that the implications of the Sand Creek address had been rankling in their hearts for years. Under ill-advised leadership there began a movement to try and take by litigation the property held by those who opposed the innovations. This was to be done on the basis of a technicality. In the inception of the Restoration in Illinois and Missouri no distinctive title was applied to the disciple brotherhood. The condition is best illustrated by this brief prepared by Daniel Sommer for the Sand Creek church.

     "As far as the name of the church is concerned, we say that all the proof shows that from the beginning of the Reformation of the 19th century, the church has always been known by the names Christian Church, Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ. Any congregation in the brotherhood might adopt either of these names, or any other scriptural name as the 'Church of the First-born,' the 'Church of God,' and thereby take a name approved of by the brotherhood. All of these names were used as synonyms, interchangeably, and meaning the same thing."

     The term "Christian Church" had been the most popular one among the members and the people of the community as well. The property was therefore deeded to "the trustees of the Christian Church." This was the name most frequently found above the doors of the church buildings or engraved upon their cornerstones. When "the line of demarkation" was drawn by the Sand Creek address those who opposed the innovations sought to distinguish their party from the others. Gradually they began to adopt as a title "Church of Christ" and to apply the term "Christian Church" to those who used instrumental music. The community knowing little of the reasons for the change still spoke of them all as "The Christian Church."

     Those who favored the innovations in various communities were urged to organize as "The Christian Church" and sue for the property held by the "Antis" on the basis that they no longer constituted

[Page 4]

the "Christian Church" but were a new party formed by secession and created by adoption of the Sand Creek Declaration in 1889. History reveals that such suits were hardly ever entered until local, trivial and unrelated matters prompted personal feeling, but once such litigation was in progress the prominent preachers on both sides flocked to the spot to qualify as expert witnesses on the traditional procedures and practices of the church. A study of the court cases shows that their testimony was contradictory at almost every point but one. All agreed that each congregation was autonomous and "a law unto itself." Apparently none of them saw their own inconsistency in coming long distances to insert themselves into congregational affairs. Typical of the testimony on this point is that of the Rev. E. A. Hoffman, a Progressive, as given in circuit court in the Sand Creek church trial.

     "Each church in the brotherhood is entirely independent of the other, and it is in control of its own affairs. There is no ecclesiastical authority over the management of their affairs; there is no higher court than the congregation; they may ask counsel of others, but there is no authority; there is no such thing as presbyteries or synods."

     "We hereby covenant together that the congregation composed of the undersigned unite themselves together in one body as true Christian worshipers, to be known only as 'The Church of Christ,' agreeing before God and with one another to take the word of God as our only rule of faith, practice and discipline, repudiating all human creeds; announcing the belief that anything practiced for church duty, not taught in the word of God is idolatrous, hence is sinful, and that we will not give such things our aid but try to prevent others from embracing them; and further promising to honor and obey the officers selected and appointed for the church."

     At this meeting three trustees were elected and a certificate of organization was drawn up by George S. Morris, the secretary of the meeting. This certificate was notarized on December 7 and the following day was filed in the office of the recorder of Piatt county. On February 9, 1883, John R. Howell was sent to secure the deed to the lot from John K. Warren. He was accompanied by one of the trustees, Anderson Wacaser. When Warren asked how the deed should be made out, Howell told him just to make it to "the trustees of the Christian Church." This was the way most of the members and the community spoke of it. Later, during the trial in court, Howell testified on cross-examination as follows:

     "If I had known when I told Warren to write the deed that the local name was Church of Christ, I suppose I would have told him to write it Church of Christ. I didn't know at the time that I told Warren how to write the deed that the local name adopted by the church was the Church of Christ. I didn't know it had more than the name of Christian

[Page 5]

Church. I don't know; I might have known, too, they are called the Church of Christ"

     In 1899 a small group of dissenters in the community, knowing that the last of the original trustees, John Love, had died July 24, 1897, met in a hall a few blocks from the meetinghouse and elected three of their number as "trustees of the Christian Church in Hammond Illinois." Learning of this move, the members of the Church of Christ met on July 5, declared the office of trustee vacant and proceeded to elect successors to the original trustees. The three men elected at the hall served notice on the congregation that they were entitled to the property and demanded access to it for their use in worship. They declared that if it was not surrendered voluntarily they would enter it in any event. On New Year's Day in 1900 the trustees of the congregation changed all the locks and fastenings on the doors in order to protect the property against forceable entry. On August 23, 1901, the congregation was served notice that a suit for ejectment had been brought in the name of the Christian Church of Hammond, Illinois, "to obtain possession of said lots and the house of worship erected thereon."

     The case was heard in the Circuit Court of Piatt county before the Hon. W. G. Cochran as presiding judge. It was affirmed by the complainants that the property was deeded to the Christian Church, that it was unlawfully occupied by the Church of Christ which was an organization composed of those who had seceded from the Christian Church on August 14, 1889, with the adoption of the "address and declaration" at Sand Creek, Illinois. An appeal was taken by the Church of Christ and because of the nature of the case the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed the case in the fall term. Their decision was handed down on December 18, 1901. The opinion of the court was read by Mr. Chief Justice Wilkins. It reversed the decision of Judge Cochran and vested ownership of the property in the possessors.

     Our concern in the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court lies chiefly in the findings with reference to the name of the church and the decision regarding the Sand Creek Address. Despite a personal interest in the science of jurisprudence I cannot become involved just now with merely legal aspects of these trials. We are studying the rise and growth of the factional spirit and its effect on the restoration movement. It will be necessary to resist the temptation to explore legal pathways in order to keep to the task at hand. Although "the trustees of the Christian Church" sought to make a play on names (much as the Church of Christ does now) their attorneys had to make certain admissions, noted by the Supreme Court.

     "Counsel for the appellee say that it is clearly established by the evidence that the original society formed in Hammond was known and recognized by several different names or titles. It was called 'Church of Christ,' 'Disciples of Christ,' and the 'Christian Church,' and these terms were identical in meaning, and used to designate persons of the same religious belief who were members of the same religious denomination."

     Acting upon this information and concession, the Supreme Court opinion held, "But certainly it cannot be said the congregation worshiping in the church at Hammond under the legally organized name of 'The Church of Christ' has withdrawn or seceded from the Christian Church." For the information of our readers we furnish herewith their finding with reference to the Sand Creek Address since it was to play a vital part in future litigation.

     "We do not think the 'Address and Declaration' introduced in evidence by the defendant, made at Sand Creek, Shelby County, August 14, 1889, can have any legal bearing upon the title to the property in suit. At most, that declaration shows that those who made it differed from other members of the church which they claimed to represent, as to proper methods and practice, in the church government and modes of conducting religious worship...They differ, if at all, in their views as to what is the true interpretation of the teaching of the Bible or word of God."

     Members of the judiciary knew from experience the difference between a law and its interpretation.

[Page 6]

     The wise and able jurists who composed the Supreme Court saw through the smoke screen created by the counsel for both sides and in the final opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Hand pointed out the divergent philosophies involved. They designated 1849 as one crucial point and 1889 as another. The first marks the year of the inauguration of the missionary society; the second the year of the reading of the Sand Creek Address. They also note the partisan use of the terms "Christian Church" and "Church of Christ." We cannot desist from sharing their opinion with our readers even as we apologize for the length of the quotation which comprises one paragraph of the decision. We feel that you will do well to read it in full. We could occupy scores of pages in discussion of its implications.

     The several church organizations formed by the followers of Alexander Campbell--and they are numerous--at the time of their organization were, and now are, purely congregational in their government; that is, there is no general conference, synod, presbytery or other similar body which exercises supervision over said church congregations, but each organization, in matters of practice, in church government and otherwise, is sovereign, and the congregations so organized have no creed except the Bible, the view of the followers of said Alexander Campbell being, that where the Bible speaks the congregation and its several members are authorized to speak, but where it is silent the congregation and the members thereof should also remain silent. In 1849 there sprang up among the members of said religious sect different views upon subjects of practice to be adopted by the congregations with reference to matters upon which the Bible is silent, one view being, that in the matters upon which the Bible is silent such silence should be construed as a positive prohibition; the other view being, that if the Bible is silent upon a given subject pertaining to church government then the congregation may formulate a rule in that particular for the government of the congregation. The diversion along the lines above suggested seems to have grown as the church membership increased, and in 1889 there was a wide difference of views between the several congregations, and between the members of the same congregation, relative to many practices in the church, such as to the propriety of having instrumental music in the church services; the employment by the congregation of ministers of the gospel for a fixed time and for a fixed salary; the organization of missionary societies and Sunday Schools as separate organizations outside the regular church congregations; the raising of funds for the support of the gospel by holding church fairs and festivals, and perhaps in other matters of a similar character; and in that year, at the annual August meeting held at Sand Creek church, and where there was present a large concourse of people drawn together from different congregations, Rev. Daniel Summer, a follower of Alexander Campbell, preached a sermon upon what was characterized as innovations upon the practices of the church, and afterwards a declaration, known as the "Sand Creek Declaration," was presented to the brethren present for their endorsement. That declaration condemned many, if not all, of the practices above referred to. It was signed by a few, only, of those who were present, and it was not considered binding upon any member of the church or upon any congregation unless signed by the member or adopted by the church congregation, but was considered merely advisory to the members of the church. The division heretofore referred to, from that time forward seems to have spread, and at the time this suit was com-

[Page 7]

menced the evidence shows the followers of Alexander Campbell had divided upon those lines to such an extent that one faction in the church was characterized as progressive and the other conservatives, the members favoring the more liberal view being called "Progressive," while those entertaining the more conservative view were called "Antis." The persons entertaining the progressive view appear latterly to have usually favored and taken in their church congregation the name "Christian Church," while those favoring the conservative view have taken the name "Church of Christ" as the name of their church organizations.

     "Great oaks from little acorns grow," and great court cases grow from minor incidents. None of the issues referred to in the Supreme Court decision had anything to do with instigation of the original suit. In 1903 the membership roster at Sand Creek contained 130 names. There were three elders. It had been the custom of the congregation to hold singing schools periodically and to make the instruction available to all, paying the teacher from the general fund. In November 1903, a man by the name of McCoy asked permission to hold a singing school in the meetinghouse. He proposed to finance it by touring the community and signing up scholars on a subscription basis. He announced that he would start the class on a certain Wednesday night.

     On the Lord's Day prior to this the elders placed the matter before the congregation. Several urged that it was an inopportune time for a singing school because it was the corn husking season. Two members spoke against having it at the time because they had been summoned as jurors in the fall term of court. No one favored the project openly so the elders announced that no singing school would be held but that the class might be conducted on the following Wednesday night. Instructions were given for any who attended to see that no subscription paper was circulated. When McCoy came for the first session one of the elders informed him that the congregation had decided against having a singing school at the time. He ignored this and announced another class for Thursday night.

     The following day McCoy and two members drove about the neighborhood and solicited names. They met another elder who informed them again of the decision of the congregation. On Thursday night McCoy sought to appeal to the trustees of the congregation for use of the building but these decided that they would respect the decision of the congregation. It was on this occasion that one of the chief instigators of the legal suit said they had no intention of tearing down the house or of carrying off the seats and that the church property was deeded to the Christian Church and he had the deed in his house. The singing class was transferred to the schoolhouse, but at a public meeting the spokesman referred to denounced the elders for their decision and stated that since the age of miracles ceased there were no elders and neither the elders nor the congregation had any authority over him.

     In February, 1904, this man ceased to attend and after the elders had visited him at length to urge his return with no success, public announcement of excommunication was made. Some twenty-seven others then ceased to attend and began meeting at the schoolhouse. A few days later two of these waited upon the trustees and asked for use of the meetinghouse half the time. They stated that they represented "The Christian Church of Sand Creek." On July 7, 1904 the group posted public notices calling for a meeting to be held on July 16, for the purpose of electing trustees and other officers and to adopt the corporate name contained in the deed to the property made by James Turrentine. At the meeting they adopted the name "The Christian Church of Sand Creek," and filed a certificate of organization in the Recorder's Office.

     Following this a suit was brought in circuit court. In their Bill in Equity the complainants referred to the bishops as men who "claim to be Elders in some sort of a religious organization called by them 'the Church of Christ'" and charged that they "pretend they have the title to and exclusive use of the same (property) and fraudulently and wrongfully withhold the same from the Christian Church of Sand

[Page 8]

Creek." It was affirmed that the "said so-called Church of Christ and the defendants named herein, claim to base their said action upon certain things that were done at a meeting held at orator's said meetinghouse sometime in 1889, at which meeting some over-righteous malcontents made a public declaration of what they believed, and undertook to define what your orators and others ought to believe and how they ought to worship."

     The testimony shows that none of the complainants had ever previously indicated any favorable inclination toward the various "innovations'' and some of them had actually made extreme statements in opposition thereto. But now, in an attempt to make it appear that there was a difference between the "Church of Christ" and "Christian Church" all of the points of difference were espoused and declared to be "the doctrines, customs, practice and beliefs" of the church. This made it possible to import preachers who qualified as "experts" in these various areas of interpretation. Motivated by a desire to gain the victory each party placed its best men on the stand and the legal contest was prolonged as skillful attorneys sought to use them to win a point for one side or the other.

     "The Christian Church at Sand Creek" had two serious disadvantages. All of its expert witnesses affirmed the autonomy of the local congregation, and under examination stated that in cases of disagreement, the wish of the majority should be accepted and respected by the minority. Since there were but thirty who had seceded and about one-hundred who remained, and since none of the elders or deacons had defected, their legal cause was helpless from the outset. It appeared that the main point to be gained was an attempt to destroy the effectiveness of the "Sand Creek Declaration," and to brand "The Church of Christ" with "acting in an unneighborly, unmanly and bigoted manner, with no fairness," as stated in the original bill.

     In the light of subsequent history there are some interesting facets of the complaint. One charge made by "The Christian Church" was "that Sommer professed to take the Bible and the Bible alone, but instead of that he would receive a member that had been baptized in the Methodist Church without further baptism, that he would receive a member of the Baptist Church that didn't believe that baptism was essential." Clearly this was before some of "The Churches of Christ" had adopted the re-baptism theory which crystallized them into a sect, and before some of "The Christian Churches" adopted the practice of open membership which denies the necessity of immersion as admission to fellowship. Time brings great changes!

     "The taking of the evidence, consuming as it did nearly two weeks, unfolded the history of the Christian Church--a splendid organization coming into existence perhaps a century ago, avoiding tiresome creeds and looking alone to the Bible as a guide to faith and practice."

     He said, "That church has grown and spread throughout the Union and its faith and teachings find a response in the hearts of people everywhere. This church was the only religious body, I believe, to have a headquarters upon the grounds of the World's Fair at St. Louis."

     His finding was in behalf of "The Church of Christ at Sand Creek." The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois. We have already quoted at length from the decision of the members of that court as read by Mr. Justice Hand. That decision pointed out that even though "the great majority of the church congregations which are professed followers of Alexander Campbell have

[Page 9]

adopted in practice the innovations from the practice of which defendants in error held aloof" this would not affect the status of the Sand Creek congregation because each congregation is sovereign "in all matters pertaining to church government--that is, each congregation has the right to determine for itself what its practices in the manner of conducting the worship of God in the congregation and its church business shall be, so long as such practices are not in conflict with the positive commands of the Bible." The Supreme court upheld the decision of the circuit court.

     No group of men, regardless of sincerity or righteousness, has the right to come together and declare that others who have been born into God's family shall "no longer be regarded as brethren." This is discipline based on ex familia, out of the family, and it is not within human jurisdiction or prerogative. It substitutes "the wisdom of men" for "the power of God." It is unscriptural and antiscriptural. It removes the salt from the body and the leaven from the lump. It is based on fear and defeatism. It is the foundation of exclusivism and monasticism. Its outworkings can be seen in the narrow concept of the factional groups which have been nourished on it. Unless it is rejected as a basis of spiritual life it will breed other divisive offspring in the future which will be sustained by the pap flowing from factional breasts, until we shall be divided out of existence.

     I am opposed to every foreign element introduced into the government and worship of the ekklesia of God but I shall make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation. We must repudiate and reject the whole concept of trying to unite the children of God by dividing them. Brotherhood is based on fatherhood, fraternity is based upon paternity--and I must recognize as brethren all of His children. I am sick and tired of the bitter wrangling and jarring of the party spirit. I cannot answer the prayer of Jesus for oneness by the advocacy of division. The traditional attitude of our various fragments and splinters is mere modern Church-of-Christ-ism and as sectarian in nature as most other "isms." If this be treason make the most of it!

     Many of my brethren have inherited another spirit, that of innovationism. Under the guise of freedom that has been passed down to them they know no restraints except their own wishes. In a mad scramble for worldly success and recognition they have been tempted to scrap the exhortations to holiness and to wink at sin. If some of us have been touched with the taint of exclusivism, these have been cursed with the blight of "inclusivism," the philosophy that anything that pleases us must also please God. The word of God is not the real authority at all but the desires of the half-converted cult of the unconcerned ones whose wishes have to be catered to in order to keep them appeased. The exclusivists will allow no one to go with them who does not agree in every particular; the inclusivists agree that anything goes and are not particular!

     If we cannot achieve unity by refusing to embrace our brethren in the Lord, neither can we promote peace by embracing those things which are not in the

[Page 10]

Word. Is it not time for a soul-searching, a re-study of the revealed will, a real return to the spirit and power of the primitive ekklesia? How much longer shall we perpetuate the bitter feuds of yesterday and the unspirituality of our own day? Would it not be better to live on crusts and wear rags with a clear conscience than to dine on "kingly fare" and be banished by the King over there? Let us have a real restoration of the restoration spirit. Let it begin here! Let it begin now!