Factional Flames
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
This statement in the "Sand Creek Address and Declaration" read in August, 1889, was an act of "formal division" according to one of its chief proponents. It was written to "draw a line of demarkation between the churches of Christ and our innovating brethren." Endorsed by Daniel Sommer in the north and by David Lipscomb in the south, this became the orthodox position of the restoration protestants. It has now become sanctified by three-quarters of a century of practice and is generally regarded as the will of God. Its repeated application has shattered the restoration movement into numerous rival and antagonistic factions. In spite of its evil fruits of strife and division it is offended by most parties with such zeal that one who dares to challenge it is regarded as a heretic.
It is "with malice toward none and charity toward all" that we deny the philosophy of separation from brethren is God's program for his children. We grew up in a narrow factional environment, nourished on the theological milk drawn from the breasts of such a partisan alma mater. We regarded that faction as the church of God. For it, and it alone, God spent four thousand years preparing the world of mankind. For it only did our Lord endure the cruel reproaches of men and die upon the cross. Its members were the saints of God to the exclusion of all others. They were the "loyal brethren" and all others on earth were unfaithful and apostate. The bounds of the kingdom of heaven reached no farther than "our brotherhood." The one body comprised those congregations only which listened to "faithful preachers" and rejected all others as "false teachers."
I have a deep compassion for all of my brethren who are fettered and chained by such concepts. I know the surging and tugging of the spirit to be free. I know the inner revulsion of heart against the inconsistency involved in calling upon one to pray whose life is a disgrace, while treating with cool disdain a visitor from another faction whose behavior is saintly but who is outside the pale, treated as a heathen and publican, because he does not concur with our interpretation. I know the sickening feeling when doubt creeps into an honest mind and one begins to question how long he can continue to wink at partisan shortcomings and sins while condemning others wholesale "because they walk not with us." I now realize that this whole fabric of behavior is not of God at all. It is merely the implementation of human judgment reached by men under stress. He who opposes it does not oppose the will of
[Page 2] |
Certainly differences among brethren must be faced! The problems which arise must be met. We cannot become "human ostriches" and thrust our heads into the sand, ignoring those things which threaten us. We do not castigate our brethren for dealing with troublesome issues in 1889. There were innovations which appeared to them as being destructive of the faith. No doubt our fathers did the best they could at the time and under the circumstances. We are in poor position to chastise them for adopting the procedure they did, seeing that we personally practiced it for years without question.
Now that we do question it we have no desire to reflect upon them. We must walk in the light available unto us and the increasing knowledge of truth demands that we adjust our lives accordingly. It does not require that we condemn those who exercised their best judgment under darker skies. No human decision must ever become so sacred that it dare not be reviewed. No human conclusion must ever be so hallowed that it cannot be re-examined. We propose to set forth very humbly our estimation of the nature and results of that philosophy of brotherhood which has become basic Church-of-Christ-ism in our day.
1. The "Sand Creek Address" was a formal statement of what was believed to be a solution to the problem of innovationism. It was a human expedient devised as an emergency measure when other means were considered failures. One of its defenders said, "We have from the first agitation of this subject been numbered with those who earnestly endeavored to find some other solution of the problem than a formal separation." This same writer designated it as containing "the sentiments of the brethren who assembled at Sand Creek, in Shelby county, Illinois, on August 17, 1889."
2. After being adopted, however, it soon became the criterion for measuring the faithfulness of men. Those who cut across all factional lines and respected brotherhood regardless of innovations were looked at askance and were soon driven out as disloyal. By establishing "separation" as the official means of opposing error, two parties were automatically created. After this one could no longer protest against innovations as a non-partisan. He had to "line up" or he would be "lined out." Thus it came to pass that it was not opposition to error but partisan alliance which became the test of loyalty.
3. The word of God condemns separation from brethren as a means of implementing the divine will. It is regarded as a symptom of sensuality. "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit" (Jude 19). Separation is the resort of the immature and the carnal (1 Con 3:1-3). Division among the children of God is a sin, a work of the flesh.
4. The philosophy of separation is based upon a false premise, that in any direct encounter between truth and error, truth must inevitably succumb and suffer defeat. It is promoted by an unreasonable and unreasoning fear that we cannot preserve what we have gained without constructing a human wall about it. This is essentially the foundation of all creedalism and monasticism. It renders impossible the doing of God's will on earth as it is in heaven, because it removes the salt from the mass, the leaven from the lump and the light from the pathway.
5. The "Sand Creek Address" usurped divine prerogatives and transferred them to fallible men. Only the Father has a right to determine whom we shall "regard as brethren." Brotherhood is not the result of partisan agreement but of the new birth. Fraternity is based upon paternity, not conformity. The purpose of the decision was to set at nought certain brethren. Granted that these brethren were wrong in attitude and in error in their thinking, yet we are forbidden to retaliate. God will adjust many things at
[Page 3] |
6. It is apparent from history that the arbitrary decision to dissolve brotherhood was made with a view to justifying use of the civil courts in property suits. The scriptures are plain on this matter. "I speak to your shame...brother goeth to law with brother." The apostle further declares, "Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you; because ye go to law with one another." By adopting a position which made it possible to no longer regard as brothers those who differed, court cases were inaugurated all over the country. This was one of the most shameful periods in the history of the restoration movement. To see those who preach unity so divided they cannot even adjudicate their own disputes is a tragedy beyond description.
7. Any theory or system which embodies division among the believers as a necessary part of its constitution must be both unscriptural and anti-scriptural. The doctrine of defense by disunity, of preservation by separation, or of faithfulness by fission, is unknown to the divine revelation given to the members of the one body. God does not demand unity of the believers in one passage and sanction their fragmentation in another. We do not reject the truth of heaven when we refuse to subscribe to this philosophy. It can only breed factionalism and strife.
1. Since it was the organization of the missionary society which first gave rise to the charge of innovationism many of those who opposed it actually came to exhibit but little interest in proclamation of the gospel to other nations. The faction in which I grew up shrugged off any concern for those in the rest of the world with the oft-repeated phrase, "There are plenty of heathen at our back door without going to other parts of the earth." Not only did we not encourage men to go to the regions beyond with the good news but we refused to send to any who went forth from other factions. While there are some of the non-instrument groups which have greatly stepped up the tempo of their foreign preaching program, there are many factions which never contribute a cent per year to the proclamation of the word on foreign soil. Many of those who are sent out go to take their divisive and partisan feuds to other nations of the earth and thus spread the sickening blight of American factionalism.
2. The philosophy of separation produced an unfortunate and spiritually unhealthful attitude toward the sacred scriptures. These came to be regarded as a repository of partisan material, an arsenal of factional weapons produced especially to bombard dissident brethren in other splinter parties. Passages were warped, twisted and wrested to justify practices to which they had no relation. Those who have read with unbiased minds the conflicts over instrumental music, bible classes, individual cups, etc., know how party champions both pro and con, have distorted and contorted the revelation of heaven to win a point. As a sense of brotherhood disappeared and those who disagreed were branded as apostates, sectarians or false teachers, nothing was deemed unfair in dealing with them.
3. Inconsistency of the most aggravated type characterized all of the factions. This is ever the case when legalism supplants love of truth and when the letter rather than the spirit becomes the canon of approval. Men who passed the partisan test of fellowship were labeled as "sound in the faith" although their lives were often a disgrace to their profession. Consecrated and godly men from
[Page 4] |
4. On the ground of witnessing by withdrawing "The Church of Christ" developed a monastic exclusivism which crystallized it into a narrow and rigid sect. In the faction with which I was identified there was but one "loyal paper." When the editors of this party organ, as we saw it, defected and "compromised" we held a mass meeting and gave our support to another editor I can recall when the only literature actually sanctioned in the home consisted of books and tracts produced by members of our own religious clan. Since scholarship was rather limited the variety was not too great. Among us were some who would read nothing else for fear of being defiled. It was not uncommon to hear one say, "I've got my Bible and that's enough for me." Gradually each faction became blighted by ignorance and intolerance, knowing only the arguments used (or misused) to sustain the party position. It has been an interesting phenomenon to observe partisan champions referring "learnedly" to foreign languages, the implications of which they did not understand, while unable to speak English well or to read it in such a manner as to convey its intended meaning.
As a whole "The Church of Christ" recognizing no brotherhood beyond its parochial limitations has contributed very little to the universal current of religious thought. Its seminaries have concentrated on producing a factional clergy steeped in pedantry. The administrators of these fountains of knowledge have had one eye focused on the Bible and the other cocked at that particular "brotherhood" from which they drew their support. Motivated by fear they have stifled every teacher who was a non-conformist. It became a "kiss of death" for any student to write home that a professor was advocating an idea or interpretation which did not fit the traditional pattern.
The products of these schools, growing up in such an insular environment, have been incapable of furthering the original purpose of the restoration movement which was "a project to unite the Christians in all the sects." They have had no contact with the flock of God scattered over the sectarian hills. Frequently they do not even know the members of other factions of the movement living in the same city. Thus they have built up confined and illiberal parties in which real freedom to think, speak and act, no longer exists. Although Jesus intended that there should be one community within whose borders men might dwell in harmony despite divergent opinions, the philosophy of separation created a multiplicity of regimented circles in which intolerance is counted a virtue and forbearance is reckoned as a sin.
[Page 5] |
Even while the courts were deliberating on the Sand Creek suit, Daniel Sommer was preparing for an attack on what he called the "New Digressives." With the inception of David Lipscomb College, the incentive to launch such schools was furnished and one was started at Odessa, Missouri. In February, 1907, Daniel Sommer and B. F. Rhodes met in public discussion at Odessa, and later at Hale, Missouri. In his sixth speech at Odessa, Brother Sommer declared, "My friends, you will find that every argument that he can use in favor of this institution can be used in favor of man-made missionary societies, and every other man-made institution for the purpose of advocating religion." This position committed Brother Sommer to "no longer regard as brethren" those who endorsed such schools.
In 1908, he began a written discussion with J. N. Armstrong, then president of Western Bible and Literary College at Odessa, and later to become president of Harding College. Not once did Sommer refer to Armstrong as brother although Armstrong repeatedly addressed Sommer as such. After one essay in which Bro. Sommer assailed Bro. Rhodes as "an unfaithful witness, a reckless asserter, and a bold bluffer," and Bro. Armstrong and others as "bold and blatant, disrespectful and untruthful, in their attempts to defend the colleges that I oppose, and to besmirch me because I oppose them," his opponent wrote:
"I know that my respondent and a very few other preachers are so blinded by their party spirit that they would be willing to rend asunder the body of my blessed Redeemer over the matter. Indeed they have advocated the 'making of it an issue' before this unkind speech of Brother Sommer's. Thanks be to God the brethren love the peace of God's children more than they do partyism. Should I meet a church that would not 'employ' a preacher simply because he opposes this school I would call it sinful discrimination of God's children. I have never felt the least alienated from any brother in Christ because he opposes the school work. I have condemned the dogmatic, 'pitch-fork' style in which the opposition has been waged for I deplore it. It is no way to show a man his error by making a desperate effort to convince the world he is as mean as an infidel, that he is desperately wicked, that he is beyond all redemption."
Again, on page 265 of the printed account of the discussion, brother Armstrong alludes to Brother Sommer's disregard of him as brother in these words:
"Why will Brother Sommer trifle with this serious question by trying to turn this discussion into a wrangle over English construction? Doesn't he want union, peace, good feeling and love, among brethren? Does he really want to stir up ill-feeling, strife, envy, jealousy and division? Is he trying to feed the spirit of party and prejudice? Is he ignoring the earnest entreaty of the Holy Spirit to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? What have I done that Brother Sommer manifests such bitter feelings toward me? True, I married Harding's daughter but why should his anathemas against Harding reach unto me? Before he ever saw me and knew but little of me he ceased to call me 'brother.' Is his bitterness against Harding so deep that he disfellowships those related to him?"
The attitude of Brother Sommer in the matter of "brotherhood" is summed up in a statement recorded on pages 299 and 300 of the book:
"About six years ago I began, with much reluctance, to oppose a certain class of colleges, for they had been projected by men whom I supposed were my brethren. But I have tested six of them, and have proven them to be reckless in regard to truth, on the College Question, and slanderers of me personally. As a result I cannot regard them as my brethren, and do not so designate them except through force of habit in form of expression. My opponent, on the other hand, has professed to regard me as a 'brother' but likened me to a cowardly 'dog' in his 3rd essay, and to a 'bull dog' in his 19th. Between these extremes he has been guilty of much vituperation and scurrility, toward me personally. In connection with this I mention again his almost incessant mis-representation of me and the position I occupy. In view of all this I solemnly state that I question whether the sun has ever shined upon a greater burlesque on education than when such men as I have referred to arose and offered themselves to the Churches of Christ as educators of their children...I appeal likewise to all of my brethren to unite with me in daily prayer that God will save his churches from all their enemies, and especially their college enemies.
[Page 6]
Members of certain segments of the non-instrument wing of the restoration movement are inclined to castigate Brother Sommer for his attitude toward them and their institutions. This comes with poor grace in view of the fact that his attitude was the natural consequence of the separationist philosophy adopted some years before and which is still the orthodox position of those who opposed Brother Sommer. Actually he was allowing them to taste their own gruel. They "disregarded as brethren" those who endorsed "innovations." When another innovation was introduced Brother Sommer consistently applied the official policy and refused to "regard them as brethren." It was the philosophy which needed to be blamed, not Brother Sommer. But many in "The Church of Christ" rejected Brother Sommer and retained the philosophy and have since split themselves into smithereens!
Brother Armstrong's opinion about those who composed " the brotherhood" proved to be too optimistic. It was not long until those who endorsed the schools referred to their opposers as "Sommerites" and were in turn designated as "collegeites." The two parties grew farther apart and prejudice was aroused by articles which inflamed passions. Soon there was little recognition of brotherly feeling and the factional attitude prevailed in the hearts of those on both sides. Often this was intensified by sectional feeling. In the non-instrument segment of the restoration movement brotherhood was now determined by an attitude toward religio-secular schools.
This was merely the beginning of sorrows. As congregations began to mature every alteration in method and procedure brought strife and alienation. Local congregations were thrown into furore when baptisteries were installed in meetinghouses for convenience in immersing. There were those who contended that "the pattern" was for baptizing in streams. Fortunately, an overt break on a wider scale was averted, and the disciple brotherhood escaped the fate of the Mennonite movement, one segment of which is known as "River Amish." (For the benefit of those who are interested in historic backgrounds it is interesting to note that the American Mennonite movement suffered from division over the same things that divided our restoration movement, and often in the very same period. This is interesting because their background is primarily German and Dutch, whereas ours was Scotch and Irish).
In the early days of the restoration movement the members marched forward each Sunday to lay their financial contributions on the table. This tradition based on a misconception of the words, "lay by him in store," became so ingrained that when some congregations decided to pass a plate to receive the gifts, strenuous objections were raised on the ground that this was "aping the sects." In some instances members quit attending, in others there were those who ignored the plate and marched to the table after the service to deposit their contribution in stately but solitary dignity.
Other matters, however, actually invoked the severance policy and the age of factionalism came into full flower in all of its shameful consequences in the first part of our century. Division occurred over "the order of worship" when certain ones dogmatically affirmed that Acts 2:42 contained the sequence in which "the items of worship" must be observed to be acceptable unto God. The doctrine of the autonomy of the local church was flouted as it always is by the factional spirit. Congregations which did not follow "the pattern" as to "the order" were branded as disloyal, in turn those who insisted upon it as "the only scriptural way" were designated as hobbyists. The visiting preachers resorted to insinuation
[Page 7] |
When certain congregations began to have classes on Lord's Day for the purpose of Bible study and teaching, a hue and cry was raised which has not yet subsided. An open rupture occurred and the faithfulness of men to the Lord Jesus Christ began to be tested by their personal views regarding a method of instruction. Zealots on both sides pressed their ideas and opinions both by oral proclamation and through the press until membership in the family of God began to be measured, not by the new birth but by an attitude toward Bible classes. Both sides diligently searched the scriptures with a fine tooth comb to find justification for their partisan procedures. One group found sanction for their system in every mention of the word "teach" while the other used the same passages for condemnation. It was not the word of God, nor even the interpretation of it, which caused the division, but rather the philosophy of "preservation by separation" which was adopted in 1889. J. N. Armstrong saw this and said in the debate with Brother Sommer in 1908:
"The very spirit which my respondent manifests to such a marked degree is stirring up strife in the house of God over many matters. Even in the Octographic Review family itself there is at present urgent need of peacemakers. Division is threatened and brethren are being set at naught. If the factions forming persist in the effort now making, peace will be destroyed. Brother Denney believes that it is wrong for the church to separate into classes on the Lord's Day to teach the Bible. A host of disciples stand with him. The brethren who oppose this practice believe brother Sommer is not abiding in the word of the Lord, and brother Denney evidently thinks that if brother Sommer persists he (Sommer) should be withdrawn from. This spirit is the crop from the seed brother Sommer and others of the Octographic Review have been sowing for years. They are but reaping what they have sown. I do not doubt that there are whole-hearted Christians on both sides of the question of dividing into classes. Here is a time for forbearance, long-suffering, and patience, on the part of all while, in brotherly love, a deep, earnest search for truth is being made."
I am confident that both Brother Sommer and Brother Denney were sincere in their approach to the class question. Both thought they were doing the will of the Lord. Both thought they were "speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where the Bible is silent." But they were victims of a human decision which had been reached in an attempt to deal with the first "innovations" introduced into the disciple brotherhood. I was nurtured on the philosophy embodied in that decision. I grew up to regard all who worship where instrumental music was used as sectarians. I looked upon all who opposed classes as hobbyists, or "antis." I sustained exactly the same relationship to these latter as those who used the instrument sustained to me. If I regarded either group as brethren it was with grave mental reservation. They were spiritual "half-brothers" or "step-brothers."
There is one aspect of our factional state which I wish to mention. I found it easier to be charitable toward those who opposed classes than toward those who endorsed the use of the instrument. In an honest attempt to comprehend and evaluate this feeling I have come to the conclusion that we resent those who have what we oppose more than we do those who oppose what we have because of a psychological quirk. Those who use the instrument regard us as "antis" while we regard as "antis" those who oppose classes. As so used the word "anti" has certain connotations and overtones of inferiority. I think we regarded those who opposed classes with a sort of patronizing air. They were objects of compassion because they could not distinguish between things that differ. But this very association of the word "anti" made us resent its application to us by those who used the instrument since by our own definition we assumed that they regarded us as a little bit queer.
It should be pointed out that there is a difference between a person being anti-instrument with regard to the corporate worship and an "Anti" as the term is often employed. The first relates to a man
[Page 8] |
I owe an apology to both those who use instrumental music and to those who oppose Bible classes. In truth, I owe the same apology to those in every other faction than the one in which I grew up. I have not altered my views as to either instrumental music or Bible classes but I have certainly amended my thinking on fellowship and brotherhood. I am saddened and ashamed by my previous littleness and intolerance. I now realize that in our present divided state no faction of the disciple brotherhood is "the loyal church" nor is the restoration movement the church of God. There are some in all of our parties who are as faithful as they know how to be. There are others in all of them who are a disgrace to our profession. I propose to love all of God's children as my brethren, to move among them all as they will permit and when I can do so without giving them offence. I shall discuss with them our differences as brethren and not aliens!
Our formation of parties or factions around various sides of controversial issues is sinful and wrong. Division among brethren is condemned of God. One does not violate the will of God when he rejects division in the spiritual family as a means of furthering God's purpose. Recognition of brotherhood and not rejection of it is our only hope of correcting the ills among us so we may get on with the task of "uniting the Christians in all sects." Our present state has not been produced by following God's word but by implementing the philosophy which produced the initial cleavage. And it will not be enough to go back to a certain stage since we adopted the policy and recognize as our brethren those who have since divided. We must go all the way back and reject the philosophy as such. Then we can restore brotherhood and in that frame of reference examine anew the differences which created our difficulties.
All of our parties exist as fruit of the party spirit. They will continue to exist only so long as that spirit prevails. When love for God and His children is enthroned in our hearts the party spirit must "fold its tent like the Arabs, and as silently steal away." Our history is one of tragedy and bitterness, of sorrow and division. It can become one of glorious conquest. We can once more join the stream of religious thought from which we have been isolated and insulated. We can bring to bear upon the whole scope of Christendom these truths we have learned as did the Campbells, Stone, and others of their day. The world of sectism can again be made to reel and totter under the impact of a plea for unity and restoration. But the force of that plea will be nullified and neutralized so long as we preach unity and practice division.
Perhaps the saddest day for the restoration movement came when certain ones began to advocate re-baptism of those previously immersed as a requisite to fellowship. Although there are at least nine "designs" of baptism, or blessings accruing from it, set forth in the new covenant scriptures, these arbitrarily fixed upon one and made it their creedal test for the validity of baptism. By demanding that the believer know in advance that his baptism was for this specific "design" they substituted knowledge of a result for faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the determining factor. In one fell swoop they sought to un-Christianize many of the sheep of God scattered over the sectarian hills. This partisan attempt to stake a factional claim on baptism was unknown to the pioneers of the restoration movement. It was valiantly resisted by David Lipscomb and others when it began to be advocated, but the third generation of restoration heirs had become so crystallized in their party
[Page 9] |
This doctrine has so affected the judgment of some that they will not even accept into congregational membership those who come from another segment of the restoration movement unless they submit to re-baptism. It is not an unheard of thing to see an article in some journals arguing that "Christian Church baptism" is not valid. The inference is that "Church of Christ baptism" (whatever that is) is valid. Nothing else that has ever happened has contributed more toward making "The Church of Christ" an insular twentieth century sect than the general adoption of the false premise involved in the dogma of re-baptism. It stems from a complete misconception of the nature of the ekklesia of God. Until that fallacy in reasoning is removed we will never recapture the significance of the statement by Thomas Campbell in the "Declaration and Address" that, "The Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one." Until we grasp the meaning of that sentence we will simply devote our labors toward constitution of another sect in an already cruelly divided world.
Even as Daniel Sommer and J. N. Armstrong were debating the question of colleges in Missouri, in 1908, the spirit of factionalism was being kindled in other parts of the nation. Brethren were being alienated, congregations were being rent asunder, tempers were flaring and passions were surging. Brother Armstrong remarked about this fact in these words:
"Again I say, the spirit manifested by my respondent in this debate will make splinters of the Church of God. Think of the divisions in the state of Texas alone, and be wise. There are brethren there who endorse our school work but agree with brother Denney in the contention among the Octographic Review readers; so brother Denney and these Texas brethren could be one at this point, but could destroy one another on the school question. Texas brethren are setting at nought one another on many questions. Brother Rice is building up a sect over 'the order of worship,' then, there is the rebaptism question over which so much strife has been caused, and so many brethren set at nought. There is actually church property in Texas with a restrictive clause in the deed concerning 'sect baptism.' Now, brother Sommer and I agree on the rebaptism question, the classification of children, the order of worship, etc., but he disfellowships me on the school question. There are half a dozen, or more, petty sects in Texas alone, yet they are absolutely one on the great principle that a 'thus saith the Lord' is necessary to establish any religious practice. They are misunderstanding woefully what Christ has said on these subjects."
In the mad surge of factionalism the voices of moderation were drowned out. Those who pleaded for unity despite divergent opinions were branded as compromisers. They were ridiculed as being "soft." Love for the party was substituted for love for mankind. Division became the accepted mode of resolving every difficulty. It was defended and glorified as the will of God. "Gospel meetings" became the excuse for bitter partisan attacks. The advent of radio made it possible for factional orators to dispense their propaganda on a wider scale. The body of Christ was hacked and chopped to pieces under the guise of loyalty to its Head. Humble followers of the Master who could not conscientiously acquiesce in every partisan interpretation were denounced and placed under anathema by those whose moral life could not compare with theirs. The restoration movement, harassed and hagridden, became the most divided of any religious group on the American scene. The philosophy of separation and exclusivism had burst out in full bloom. The seed planted years before had produced a deadly Upas tree.
Now, after many years the axe is being laid at the root of the factional tree. Perhaps there has not been a brighter prospect in more than a century. The problems we face are still many and great. The spirit of division is entrenched deeply in the hearts of some of those whom we love. Doubt, suspicion, and hatred rear their ugly, snaky heads like modern Gorgons. But there is in the hearts of many a yearning for closer ties. There is a recognition of our common origin and a sense of our mutual need of
[Page 10] |