Don't You Like Anything About Us?
via Church of Christ, Hopewell, Virginia
"Your love has given me great joy and encouragement because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints." Philemon 7
A preacher once lived and worked in a large city and drove to a small country church to preach on Sundays. He had been preaching for this congregation for several months when an event occurred one Sunday night that forever changed the way he viewed his ministry. After a day of preaching and visiting with the brethren, he go in his car to head home. Before he could leave the parking lot, a woman in the congregation waved to him and walked over to speak to him. When he lowered his window, he could see that she was crying. He asked what the problem was, and she responded, "Don't you like anything about us?"
The woman's perception, which absolutely shocked the preacher, was that all the preacher ever said in his sermons was what the church was failing to do. As he drove home, in his mind he reviewed the sermons he had been preaching. He realized that though he loved the people in that country church, his sermons had been almost exclusively about what they were not doing. He resolved that night that he would be far more balanced in his preaching in the future. Christians, he now understood, needed to be affirmed in what they are doing right.
In the letter to Philemon, Paul had a difficult message to deliver. He had to consider sensitivities regarding government, law, culture, and economics. If his message would not be received well, it could create fierce anger and even split a church. Before he got to the issue at hand, he made a few statements to affirm what Philemon was already doing right. He addressed him as "beloved brother and fellow worker" (v.1) and told him that he thanked God for the way Philemon had brought him "much joy and comfort" (v.7) through loving and encouraging Christians in many places. Only after commending what Philemon was already doing was Paul ready to address what Philemon still needed to do.
Truth For Today Commentary: Philemon, pg 514-515
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
NON vs ANTI
September 16, 2004
Dennis Lloyd, Associate Editor
Gospel Advocate, August 2004
Dear Brother Lloyd:
You wrote on: "The Use And Misuse Of Walls." You said: "Each time some new interpretation of Scripture is espoused, a wall is built, shutting out all who do not accept it."
This made me remember the "Institutional Conflict" of the 50s & 60s. I recently found an article on the Internet by Ferell Jenkins, Tampa, FL, given at the Pepperdine Lectures in 1998. I remember this conflict was thoroughly "cussed and discussed" in our Ohio Valley Area at the time. While some did support "institutions" as they were called, others did not. But when the "non-institutional" became "anti-institutional, a new wall was built. A new plank was nailed into the Pattern and lines of fellowship drawn up. Sometimes we find two struggling churches in an area, preaching the same gospel, but separated by the "middle wall of partition" over the "institution issue."
I think I see something of the same taking place just now. While some are "Non" in their wish to avoid certain things, some are making a "new Anti" in withdrawing fellowship from those with whom they disagree. It is not enough that they themselves avoid doing certain things, but they must de-Christianize all who do not voice their "shibboleth." I fear for our "Church of Christ Brotherhood." I have preached among us since 1950 and expect to continue.
You write: "God sent His Son to bring men together, not to separate them. But His only means of achieving that togetherness is our respect for His Word." I seem to remember Daniel Sommer saying in frustration that "the New Testament is the Book we disagree on." [I looked up the reference as I have it. "Can't we agree on something???" This was the title of an article in Daniel Sommer's American Christian Review in June, 1932. The Rough draft proposed some guidelines to create unity among Churches of Christ [non-instrument]. The Review wrote: "To those of the churches of Christ who desire a plan for Unity, we submit the following for your consideration. We cry 'Unity,' and say that Unity can be obtained only on a New Testament basis; and yet the New Testament is the Book we disagree on. If we can search out the things we can agree on, and unite on them, and work together, we'll have Unity!"]
Your brother in Christ, R.D.Ice
Dennis Lloyd, Associate Editor
Gospel Advocate, August 2004
Dear Brother Lloyd:
You wrote on: "The Use And Misuse Of Walls." You said: "Each time some new interpretation of Scripture is espoused, a wall is built, shutting out all who do not accept it."
This made me remember the "Institutional Conflict" of the 50s & 60s. I recently found an article on the Internet by Ferell Jenkins, Tampa, FL, given at the Pepperdine Lectures in 1998. I remember this conflict was thoroughly "cussed and discussed" in our Ohio Valley Area at the time. While some did support "institutions" as they were called, others did not. But when the "non-institutional" became "anti-institutional, a new wall was built. A new plank was nailed into the Pattern and lines of fellowship drawn up. Sometimes we find two struggling churches in an area, preaching the same gospel, but separated by the "middle wall of partition" over the "institution issue."
I think I see something of the same taking place just now. While some are "Non" in their wish to avoid certain things, some are making a "new Anti" in withdrawing fellowship from those with whom they disagree. It is not enough that they themselves avoid doing certain things, but they must de-Christianize all who do not voice their "shibboleth." I fear for our "Church of Christ Brotherhood." I have preached among us since 1950 and expect to continue.
You write: "God sent His Son to bring men together, not to separate them. But His only means of achieving that togetherness is our respect for His Word." I seem to remember Daniel Sommer saying in frustration that "the New Testament is the Book we disagree on." [I looked up the reference as I have it. "Can't we agree on something???" This was the title of an article in Daniel Sommer's American Christian Review in June, 1932. The Rough draft proposed some guidelines to create unity among Churches of Christ [non-instrument]. The Review wrote: "To those of the churches of Christ who desire a plan for Unity, we submit the following for your consideration. We cry 'Unity,' and say that Unity can be obtained only on a New Testament basis; and yet the New Testament is the Book we disagree on. If we can search out the things we can agree on, and unite on them, and work together, we'll have Unity!"]
Your brother in Christ, R.D.Ice
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
SHALL THE SWORD DEVOUR FOREVER
Our work as preachers is not just to "baptize aliens and capsize sectarians" as Daniel Sommer would say. God has assigned us the task to preach the whole counsel of God and so to produce disciples - students of Jesus - who are committed, godly, sacrificing saints (in the Bible meaning of saints). Some would rather fight, if not the enemy, fight each other. R.D.Ice
But first some history. 50 years ago a battle was held among the Churches of Christ over supporting orphan's homes and the Herald of Truth TV program. Debates were held in Parkersburg, Columbus, and other places. Those who opposed orphan's homes called themselves "non-institutional" and called those who did support them "institutional." The "non-insitutional churches" established separate publications, called on only certain preachers for meetings, and both sides continued on their separate ways. I attach an article from a church bulletin in Kansas which is "non-institutional" in their thinking.
“SHALL THE SWORD DEVOUR FOREVER?”
David was now the official king of Israel. However,
Abner, the captain of Saul’s forces, was not in submission to
David. He assisted in the establishment of Saul’s son
Ishbosheth as king over all but the house of Judah. “But Abner
the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ishbosheth the son
of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim; and made him
king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel,
and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel.
Ishbosheth Saul’s son was forty years old when he began to
reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of
Judah followed David” (II Sam. 2:8-10).
The division was strong between the two groups. Fighting
would occur from time to time between David’s forces and the
forces of Ishbosheth. II Samuel 2:12-17 records one of the
battles. Joab, David’s captain, met Abner, the commander of
Israel in Gibeon, “And there was a very sore battle that day;
and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the
servants of David” (II Sam. 2:17).
That day Abner fled from the field of battle. A man by the
name of Asahel pursued after him. Three times Abner warned
this young man to cease his pursuit. Three times Asahel defied
the warning. Ultimately, Abner smote and killed the young
Asahel: “...wherefore Abner with the end of the spear smote
him under the fifth rib, that the spear came out behind him,
and he fell down there, and died in the same place...” (II Sam.
2:23).
This death was grievous for Joab, for Asahel was his
brother. Therefore, Joab and his brother Abishai pursued after
Abner to destroy him (II Sam. 2:24). When they found Abner,
his troops from Benjamin were gathered as one troop with
their commander. It seems as if more bloodshed was
inevitable.
It was at this point that Abner called out to Joab and
asked him a sobering question: “Then Abner called to Joab,
and said, Shall the sword devour for ever? knowest thou not
that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be
then, ere thou bid the people return from following their
brethren” (II Sam. 2:26)? Abner probably did not know the full
extent of the casualties of war at that time. He did know that
many had lost their lives. He also knew that both he and Joab
could lose their lives. Too, this battle could cause the sword to
continue to devour God’s people for many, many years. Thus,
he asked the question: “Shall the sword devour for ever?”
In 1977, this writer graduated from high school. At the
time, my interest in spiritual things increased greatly. Two
brotherhood lectureships were conducted in my home- town. I
sat at the feet of great men of God. These men stood very tall
in my eyes. Their proclamation of the Gospel impressed and
mesmerized this young Christian. It was a joy and a privilege
to hear the lessons they presented and to gain so much
knowledge and insight from these men who had studied the
word of God for years and who had labored diligently in the
kingdom of heaven.
Since that time, the sword has devoured many of these
good brethren. Today, they are split into so many groups that it
is impossible to number them all. It has gotten to the point that
one cannot move from one camp to another without being
inconsistent and without being alienated from good brethren
with whom there is no disagreement. It seems like it is time for
the army of God to stop and to give ear to the question asked
by Abner. “Shall the sword devour for ever? knowest thou not
that it will be bitterness in the latter end?” A similar teaching
was expressed by Paul in his brief epistle to the churches of
Galatia. “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and
devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of
another” (Gal. 5:14-15).
Joab, fortunately, gave heed to the inquiry of Abner. “And
Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely then
in the morning the people had gone up every one from
following his brother. So Joab blew the trumpet, and all the
people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither
fought they any more” (II Sam. 2:27-28). That day the battle
ceased. The bloodshed ended. Innocent lives were spared.
Would that many of the preachers and leaders within the
church would have the disposition of Joab. Far too many
brethren are being alienated. Hatred and wrath fill the
pages of sermons, journals and lectureship books.
Brethren are growing weary of the fighting. The world is
dying in a lost condition. “Shall the sword devour
forever?”
This writer realizes that there are some issues that
cannot be compromised. Against these, we must stand
and fight the good fight of faith (I Tim. 6:12). He also
knows that some of the battles that have divided sound
brethren should not have reached their present magnitude.
Pride, stubbornness, and hatred have filled some hearts.
Good brethren have bitten and devoured one another. It
has almost reached the point that a preacher can only
serve within the local congregation. The moment he
ventures into other pulpits, he will be marked and avoided
by some. What a shame when brethren are so divided that
innocent, sound brethren get caught in the ungodly
crossfire of in-fighting. Paul’s words to the Corinthians
are most applicable today. “For ye are yet carnal: for
whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one
saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye
not carnal” (I Cor. 3:3-4)?
“Then Abner called to Joab, and said, Shall the
sword devour for ever? knowest thou not that it will be
bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere
thou bid the people return from following their brethren”
(II Sarn. 2:26)? This is a question that needs to be asked
to conservative brethren within the churches of Christ
today. Sadly, some will boldly answer: “The sword will
never depart as far as we are concerned.” A bitter end and
much destruction will be the result of such an attitude.
This writer longs for the day when the Bible greats
among us can stand arm in arm proclaiming the saving
message to a lost world. It was that unity that encouraged
this writer to become a preacher of the Gospel. When that
unity exists once again, more youth will rise up to
become soldiers of the cross of Christ.
Victor M. Eskew from Seek The Old Paths
But first some history. 50 years ago a battle was held among the Churches of Christ over supporting orphan's homes and the Herald of Truth TV program. Debates were held in Parkersburg, Columbus, and other places. Those who opposed orphan's homes called themselves "non-institutional" and called those who did support them "institutional." The "non-insitutional churches" established separate publications, called on only certain preachers for meetings, and both sides continued on their separate ways. I attach an article from a church bulletin in Kansas which is "non-institutional" in their thinking.
“SHALL THE SWORD DEVOUR FOREVER?”
David was now the official king of Israel. However,
Abner, the captain of Saul’s forces, was not in submission to
David. He assisted in the establishment of Saul’s son
Ishbosheth as king over all but the house of Judah. “But Abner
the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ishbosheth the son
of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim; and made him
king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel,
and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel.
Ishbosheth Saul’s son was forty years old when he began to
reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of
Judah followed David” (II Sam. 2:8-10).
The division was strong between the two groups. Fighting
would occur from time to time between David’s forces and the
forces of Ishbosheth. II Samuel 2:12-17 records one of the
battles. Joab, David’s captain, met Abner, the commander of
Israel in Gibeon, “And there was a very sore battle that day;
and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the
servants of David” (II Sam. 2:17).
That day Abner fled from the field of battle. A man by the
name of Asahel pursued after him. Three times Abner warned
this young man to cease his pursuit. Three times Asahel defied
the warning. Ultimately, Abner smote and killed the young
Asahel: “...wherefore Abner with the end of the spear smote
him under the fifth rib, that the spear came out behind him,
and he fell down there, and died in the same place...” (II Sam.
2:23).
This death was grievous for Joab, for Asahel was his
brother. Therefore, Joab and his brother Abishai pursued after
Abner to destroy him (II Sam. 2:24). When they found Abner,
his troops from Benjamin were gathered as one troop with
their commander. It seems as if more bloodshed was
inevitable.
It was at this point that Abner called out to Joab and
asked him a sobering question: “Then Abner called to Joab,
and said, Shall the sword devour for ever? knowest thou not
that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be
then, ere thou bid the people return from following their
brethren” (II Sam. 2:26)? Abner probably did not know the full
extent of the casualties of war at that time. He did know that
many had lost their lives. He also knew that both he and Joab
could lose their lives. Too, this battle could cause the sword to
continue to devour God’s people for many, many years. Thus,
he asked the question: “Shall the sword devour for ever?”
In 1977, this writer graduated from high school. At the
time, my interest in spiritual things increased greatly. Two
brotherhood lectureships were conducted in my home- town. I
sat at the feet of great men of God. These men stood very tall
in my eyes. Their proclamation of the Gospel impressed and
mesmerized this young Christian. It was a joy and a privilege
to hear the lessons they presented and to gain so much
knowledge and insight from these men who had studied the
word of God for years and who had labored diligently in the
kingdom of heaven.
Since that time, the sword has devoured many of these
good brethren. Today, they are split into so many groups that it
is impossible to number them all. It has gotten to the point that
one cannot move from one camp to another without being
inconsistent and without being alienated from good brethren
with whom there is no disagreement. It seems like it is time for
the army of God to stop and to give ear to the question asked
by Abner. “Shall the sword devour for ever? knowest thou not
that it will be bitterness in the latter end?” A similar teaching
was expressed by Paul in his brief epistle to the churches of
Galatia. “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. But if ye bite and
devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of
another” (Gal. 5:14-15).
Joab, fortunately, gave heed to the inquiry of Abner. “And
Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely then
in the morning the people had gone up every one from
following his brother. So Joab blew the trumpet, and all the
people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither
fought they any more” (II Sam. 2:27-28). That day the battle
ceased. The bloodshed ended. Innocent lives were spared.
Would that many of the preachers and leaders within the
church would have the disposition of Joab. Far too many
brethren are being alienated. Hatred and wrath fill the
pages of sermons, journals and lectureship books.
Brethren are growing weary of the fighting. The world is
dying in a lost condition. “Shall the sword devour
forever?”
This writer realizes that there are some issues that
cannot be compromised. Against these, we must stand
and fight the good fight of faith (I Tim. 6:12). He also
knows that some of the battles that have divided sound
brethren should not have reached their present magnitude.
Pride, stubbornness, and hatred have filled some hearts.
Good brethren have bitten and devoured one another. It
has almost reached the point that a preacher can only
serve within the local congregation. The moment he
ventures into other pulpits, he will be marked and avoided
by some. What a shame when brethren are so divided that
innocent, sound brethren get caught in the ungodly
crossfire of in-fighting. Paul’s words to the Corinthians
are most applicable today. “For ye are yet carnal: for
whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one
saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye
not carnal” (I Cor. 3:3-4)?
“Then Abner called to Joab, and said, Shall the
sword devour for ever? knowest thou not that it will be
bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere
thou bid the people return from following their brethren”
(II Sarn. 2:26)? This is a question that needs to be asked
to conservative brethren within the churches of Christ
today. Sadly, some will boldly answer: “The sword will
never depart as far as we are concerned.” A bitter end and
much destruction will be the result of such an attitude.
This writer longs for the day when the Bible greats
among us can stand arm in arm proclaiming the saving
message to a lost world. It was that unity that encouraged
this writer to become a preacher of the Gospel. When that
unity exists once again, more youth will rise up to
become soldiers of the cross of Christ.
Victor M. Eskew from Seek The Old Paths
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Walls Are Built
Thoughts on the GA 8-24-04
Some history: This writer (R.D.Ice) has preached among the Churches of Christ since 1950 and does not worship with an "instrument." I do remember the past and things which have taken place.
"Each time some new interpretation of Scripture is espoused, a wall is built, shutting out all who do not accept it." Dennis Loyd, GA 8-04
History shows this to be true. For example, among the heirs of Stone-Campbell, the issue of "instrumental music" had been "cussed and discussed" for some years. Some used it and some opposed it. Yet at Sand Creek, IL, 1889, Daniel Sommer erected a wall by breaking fellowship over the issue, making this a matter of The Faith. It wasn't enough to reject the instrument, it became necessary to condemn and disfellowship all who used it. This was a "new doctrine."
Austen Sommer, Daniel's son, raised the wall even higher by making "mutual edification" a new test of fellowship. Others added "one cup" and "no Sunday School," etc. In recent years, "The Law of Silence" raised a new wall, and also the "Non-Institution Debates" broke fellowship and created a new Brotherhood.
A. K. Guthrie wrote: "David Lipscomb must have lived in a vacuum! It's difficult to understand how, in this time of general unrest in our brotherhood North and South, that news from Illinois required three years to get to Nashville. Mason-Dixon must really be a line!
Perhaps Lipscomb didn't want to hear--in this period, he tended to oppose division while Sommer tended to egg it on.
Lipscomb, it appears, agreed with the thrust of the Declaration. "The evils opposed, we oppose." He didn't object to the "can not and will not regard them as brethren" attitude. He did object to the nature of the gathering which produced the Declaration and, thereby, pushed it aside."
A. K. Guthrie was a dear friend and an elder of the Fort Avenue Church of Christ in Lynchburg, VA. He was intensely interested in the history of the Churches of Christ. He wrote to preserve the importance of the church-division that is typified by Sand Creek and Daniel Sommer. R.D.Ice 8-7-03
SAND CREEK ADDRESS AND DECLARATION (by David Lipscomb)
From Gospel Advocate, November 7, 1892
(Transcribed by , April 26, 1996, from photocopy)
SAND CREEK ADDRESS AND DECLARATION
Bro. Sommer publishes for our benefit the Sand Creek "Address and Declaration, by the congregations represented by their respective church officers in a mass meeting at Sand Creek, Shelby County, Illinois, August 17th, A. D. 1889."
We never saw it before. The evils opposed, we oppose. But there is no more authority for officers of different congregations to assemble in a meeting or convention to oppose and provide a remedy for these sins of individuals and churches, than there is for individuals and church representatives to assemble to oppose and provide a remedy for the failure of Christians and churches to evangelize the world. This was a convention of the elders to oppose and remedy one class of evils. The society is a convention to oppose and remedy another.
Then they say: "We state we are impelled, from a sense of duty, to say that all such as are guilty of teaching or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, that, after being admonished and having had sufficient length of time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren."
This was signed by the elders and members of six churches. This looks very much like a convention unknown to the New Testament exercising judicial and executive functions to oppose error and maintain truth, and it looks very much like doing the thing they condemn. It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this. There is no more authority for that convention of elders to rectify these wrongs, than of the convention to rectify the wrongs of Christians and churches in failing to preach the gospel.
Bro. Sommer delivers a long lecture to the Advocate on its failure to be settled in the truth and be satisfied therewith, which we duly appreciate. But, Bro. Sommer fails to quote a single scripture we violate or fail to teach. Bro. Sommer's opinions as to mass meetings and such things are not law and gospel. We shall dissent from them when we deem their influence dangerous.
He makes three complaints against the Advocate: We published the card directing those wishing to attend the late Convention how to write to get entertainment [lodging, RDI]. Bro. Sommer knows no one was led by this to think we approved the Convention. It may not have been according to Bro. Sommer's taste. But we must remind him that his taste and his opinions are no part of the law of God. And he must allow others to exercise their own taste and judgment. Bro. Sommer published at one time that he intended to attend. Was not this advertising the Convention? If he could attend, we do not see why it was a crime for us to tell him and others how they could find entertainment, as requested by the managers.
The next complaint is the statement that the Advocate has steadily spoken against it (the Sand Creek Address) and all other unauthorized conventions.
The brother who wrote this was mistaken as to what the Advocate had done. Bro. Srygley had criticised [sic] some things about it. Bros. Sewell or McQuiddy, so far as I know, had never referred to it. All my allusions to it were hypothetical, for none of us had seen it. I have now seen it, and do oppose all such unauthorized conventions, to exercise judicial or executive powers to suppress or maintain truth. The order of the scriptures must no more be violated to maintain truth than to oppose error.
We prefer, for the present, to let the matters involving the use of public questions for personal ends rest, though ready at any time to give reasons for the charge. D. L.
Continuing: But Somer's own son, Austen, built the wall higher. "Mutual edification" was the only true way. This was also a new doctrine. The Christian Standard said: "Rumor has it that nearly all the churches at Sand Creek have signed the four articles of the new faith. They have had serious trouble in formulating them. There is, however, substantial agreement that they shall read as follows:
ART. I.--That missionary societies are man-made and therefore to be avoided as sinful and unholy.
ART. II.--That church festivals, especially if there be an admittance fee at the door, are wrong and therefore can not be tolerated.
ART. III.--That "the organ in public worship is a corruption of the worship," is a very wholesome doctrine and full of comfort.
ART. IV.--That one man [a preacher, RDI] should be employed to give all his time to taking heed to the flock, is a practice dangerous to liberty, and specially subversive of the privileges of the elders. Better that the flock be not cared for, than one man should do it."
The Standard saw Austen adding:
ART. V.--That Sunday-schools are man-made institutions, and to be avoided as sinful and unholy.
ART. VI.--That religious papers are man-made institutions, and therefore not to be subscribed for or circulated.
Continuing: Others built walls against "Sunday Schools," "One Cup," and spent most of their time "capsizing sectarians rather than glorifying Christ."
I remember that in the 50s a "new doctrine" arose opposing "Orphan homes and other institutions." There was a massive breaking of fellowship and to this day two different churches of Christ may exist in one city - each claiming the other does not respect the Bible. It was not enough for each congregation to make a decision to not support "institutions." This was a matter of "The Faith." And those who did support "institutions" (as I did) were damned to hell.
I am afraid the very same thing is happening now with those who oppose what they see as a "new doctrine" ["freedom in Christ"] creating their own version of "Sand Creek" and all that it stands for.
Where is Jesus Christ in all this??? Are we throwing the "baby out with the bathwater?" Are we "leaving our first love" for Christ as did the church at Ephesus? Will the Lord "remove our candlestick?"
Sommer's Paper published a cry for unity - The Rough Draft. "Can't We Agree On Something?" And Somer said something about: "The New Testament is the Book we disagree on."
The Lord will judge us all. I will continue to preach as Peter did in Acts 2:38 and sing with the Spirit and the understanding. I will continue to baptize as Peter did, and tell "seekers" what he told them. And I will continue to pray for everyone of my brothers and sisters in Christ everywhere. "The Lord knoweth them that are His."
R. D. Ice October 20, 2004
Some history: This writer (R.D.Ice) has preached among the Churches of Christ since 1950 and does not worship with an "instrument." I do remember the past and things which have taken place.
"Each time some new interpretation of Scripture is espoused, a wall is built, shutting out all who do not accept it." Dennis Loyd, GA 8-04
History shows this to be true. For example, among the heirs of Stone-Campbell, the issue of "instrumental music" had been "cussed and discussed" for some years. Some used it and some opposed it. Yet at Sand Creek, IL, 1889, Daniel Sommer erected a wall by breaking fellowship over the issue, making this a matter of The Faith. It wasn't enough to reject the instrument, it became necessary to condemn and disfellowship all who used it. This was a "new doctrine."
Austen Sommer, Daniel's son, raised the wall even higher by making "mutual edification" a new test of fellowship. Others added "one cup" and "no Sunday School," etc. In recent years, "The Law of Silence" raised a new wall, and also the "Non-Institution Debates" broke fellowship and created a new Brotherhood.
A. K. Guthrie wrote: "David Lipscomb must have lived in a vacuum! It's difficult to understand how, in this time of general unrest in our brotherhood North and South, that news from Illinois required three years to get to Nashville. Mason-Dixon must really be a line!
Perhaps Lipscomb didn't want to hear--in this period, he tended to oppose division while Sommer tended to egg it on.
Lipscomb, it appears, agreed with the thrust of the Declaration. "The evils opposed, we oppose." He didn't object to the "can not and will not regard them as brethren" attitude. He did object to the nature of the gathering which produced the Declaration and, thereby, pushed it aside."
A. K. Guthrie was a dear friend and an elder of the Fort Avenue Church of Christ in Lynchburg, VA. He was intensely interested in the history of the Churches of Christ. He wrote to preserve the importance of the church-division that is typified by Sand Creek and Daniel Sommer. R.D.Ice 8-7-03
SAND CREEK ADDRESS AND DECLARATION (by David Lipscomb)
From Gospel Advocate, November 7, 1892
(Transcribed by , April 26, 1996, from photocopy)
SAND CREEK ADDRESS AND DECLARATION
Bro. Sommer publishes for our benefit the Sand Creek "Address and Declaration, by the congregations represented by their respective church officers in a mass meeting at Sand Creek, Shelby County, Illinois, August 17th, A. D. 1889."
We never saw it before. The evils opposed, we oppose. But there is no more authority for officers of different congregations to assemble in a meeting or convention to oppose and provide a remedy for these sins of individuals and churches, than there is for individuals and church representatives to assemble to oppose and provide a remedy for the failure of Christians and churches to evangelize the world. This was a convention of the elders to oppose and remedy one class of evils. The society is a convention to oppose and remedy another.
Then they say: "We state we are impelled, from a sense of duty, to say that all such as are guilty of teaching or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, that, after being admonished and having had sufficient length of time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren."
This was signed by the elders and members of six churches. This looks very much like a convention unknown to the New Testament exercising judicial and executive functions to oppose error and maintain truth, and it looks very much like doing the thing they condemn. It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this. There is no more authority for that convention of elders to rectify these wrongs, than of the convention to rectify the wrongs of Christians and churches in failing to preach the gospel.
Bro. Sommer delivers a long lecture to the Advocate on its failure to be settled in the truth and be satisfied therewith, which we duly appreciate. But, Bro. Sommer fails to quote a single scripture we violate or fail to teach. Bro. Sommer's opinions as to mass meetings and such things are not law and gospel. We shall dissent from them when we deem their influence dangerous.
He makes three complaints against the Advocate: We published the card directing those wishing to attend the late Convention how to write to get entertainment [lodging, RDI]. Bro. Sommer knows no one was led by this to think we approved the Convention. It may not have been according to Bro. Sommer's taste. But we must remind him that his taste and his opinions are no part of the law of God. And he must allow others to exercise their own taste and judgment. Bro. Sommer published at one time that he intended to attend. Was not this advertising the Convention? If he could attend, we do not see why it was a crime for us to tell him and others how they could find entertainment, as requested by the managers.
The next complaint is the statement that the Advocate has steadily spoken against it (the Sand Creek Address) and all other unauthorized conventions.
The brother who wrote this was mistaken as to what the Advocate had done. Bro. Srygley had criticised [sic] some things about it. Bros. Sewell or McQuiddy, so far as I know, had never referred to it. All my allusions to it were hypothetical, for none of us had seen it. I have now seen it, and do oppose all such unauthorized conventions, to exercise judicial or executive powers to suppress or maintain truth. The order of the scriptures must no more be violated to maintain truth than to oppose error.
We prefer, for the present, to let the matters involving the use of public questions for personal ends rest, though ready at any time to give reasons for the charge. D. L.
Continuing: But Somer's own son, Austen, built the wall higher. "Mutual edification" was the only true way. This was also a new doctrine. The Christian Standard said: "Rumor has it that nearly all the churches at Sand Creek have signed the four articles of the new faith. They have had serious trouble in formulating them. There is, however, substantial agreement that they shall read as follows:
ART. I.--That missionary societies are man-made and therefore to be avoided as sinful and unholy.
ART. II.--That church festivals, especially if there be an admittance fee at the door, are wrong and therefore can not be tolerated.
ART. III.--That "the organ in public worship is a corruption of the worship," is a very wholesome doctrine and full of comfort.
ART. IV.--That one man [a preacher, RDI] should be employed to give all his time to taking heed to the flock, is a practice dangerous to liberty, and specially subversive of the privileges of the elders. Better that the flock be not cared for, than one man should do it."
The Standard saw Austen adding:
ART. V.--That Sunday-schools are man-made institutions, and to be avoided as sinful and unholy.
ART. VI.--That religious papers are man-made institutions, and therefore not to be subscribed for or circulated.
Continuing: Others built walls against "Sunday Schools," "One Cup," and spent most of their time "capsizing sectarians rather than glorifying Christ."
I remember that in the 50s a "new doctrine" arose opposing "Orphan homes and other institutions." There was a massive breaking of fellowship and to this day two different churches of Christ may exist in one city - each claiming the other does not respect the Bible. It was not enough for each congregation to make a decision to not support "institutions." This was a matter of "The Faith." And those who did support "institutions" (as I did) were damned to hell.
I am afraid the very same thing is happening now with those who oppose what they see as a "new doctrine" ["freedom in Christ"] creating their own version of "Sand Creek" and all that it stands for.
Where is Jesus Christ in all this??? Are we throwing the "baby out with the bathwater?" Are we "leaving our first love" for Christ as did the church at Ephesus? Will the Lord "remove our candlestick?"
Sommer's Paper published a cry for unity - The Rough Draft. "Can't We Agree On Something?" And Somer said something about: "The New Testament is the Book we disagree on."
The Lord will judge us all. I will continue to preach as Peter did in Acts 2:38 and sing with the Spirit and the understanding. I will continue to baptize as Peter did, and tell "seekers" what he told them. And I will continue to pray for everyone of my brothers and sisters in Christ everywhere. "The Lord knoweth them that are His."
R. D. Ice October 20, 2004
Sommer - Change
Sommer And Change
[I write from 58 years of preaching among the non-instrument Churches of Christ. I have experienced something of our history. My Bible has the words of Jesus in red letters. Jesus said we would be judged by the words He had spoken. Unity is as much a command as "repent and be baptized." We are to be One In Christ. R.D.Ice]
Daniel Sommer was a godly man and honest and loved the Lord. Yet he was to be a "change agent" producing results which he did not anticipate. He had "blind spots" (don't we all?) and believed he was standing for Truth. Yet he unintentionally introduced distortion by his understanding of "Bible authority" and how to establish it. On the plus side he held Gospel Meetings (Revivals) for many years, continuing even when he was blind in his old age.
At Sand Creek. Illinois, August 17, 1889, a fiery young preacher - Daniel Sommer - called for a rupture of fellowship with all who adopted instrumental music in worship. "....that we can not and will not regard them as brethren." In 1904, the two factions at Sand Creek took their case to the courts in order to retain control over the church property, since it was obvious that the two wings could never worship in harmony. The case went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, who decided in the favor of the non-instrument group. They received possession of the Christian Church building at Sand Creek.
Then in 1906 David Lipscomb (editor of the Gospel Advocate paper) instructed the US Census that the Church of Christ (non-instrument) was a separate and distinct organization no longer connected with the Christian Churches.
"Each time some new interpretation of Scripture is espoused, a wall is built, shutting out all who do not accept it." Dennis Loyd, Gospel Advocate 8-04
History shows this to be true. For example, among the heirs of Stone-Campbell, the issue of "instrumental music" had been "cussed and discussed" for some years. Some used it and some opposed it. Yet at Sand Creek, IL, 1889, Daniel Sommer erected a wall by breaking fellowship over the issue, making this a matter of The Faith. It wasn't enough to reject the instrument, it became necessary to condemn and disfellowship all who used it. When "non-instrument" changed to "anti-instrument" it became an "unwritten creed" which was imposed to force compliance. This became a "new doctrine."
Daniel Sommer expected his move to unite the brotherhood. However his understanding of "Bible authority" opened the way for additional division. [Jesus warned against the "leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:12), which distorted things.] Sommer said later: "If the Lord had told us to splinter into as many factions as possible, we could not have done a worse job." He said: "The New Testament is the Book we disagree over." He published an article in his paper, "The American Christian Review" in June, 1932: "Can't we agree on anything?"
That our readers may see the real extremes to which the party spirit will carry men, we reproduce herewith an appeal from "The Warrior," published in the issue of August 1, 1959: "Brethren: We wish to compile and publish a list of LOYAL congregations. We want to make a directory of loyal congregations for the benefit of the traveling brethren who wish to worship with loyal congregations; secondly, for the benefit of brethren who are desirous of moving to a loyal congregation. To compile this directory we need the following information. Describe every act of worship in your assemblies. Describe your position on the Communion. Do you have one or two communions on Sunday? Do you use only one cup and one loaf? Do you fellowship the Sunday School or clips brethren? Do you fellowship the Old Paths Advocate? Or other digressives? Do you advocate any doctrine or act of worship that is called a hobby by most of the brotherhood? If you want to be counted among the honored few, give us correct answers to all of our questions, otherwise you will be left out of our directory.... Are you living in a state of division, having pulled off from another congregation? Please answer all questions. Do you contend that the cup must have a handle on it? Do you contend the cup must not have a handle on it?"
Look at: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/forum/reflect.html
[I write from 58 years of preaching among the non-instrument Churches of Christ. I have experienced something of our history. My Bible has the words of Jesus in red letters. Jesus said we would be judged by the words He had spoken. Unity is as much a command as "repent and be baptized." We are to be One In Christ. R.D.Ice]
Daniel Sommer was a godly man and honest and loved the Lord. Yet he was to be a "change agent" producing results which he did not anticipate. He had "blind spots" (don't we all?) and believed he was standing for Truth. Yet he unintentionally introduced distortion by his understanding of "Bible authority" and how to establish it. On the plus side he held Gospel Meetings (Revivals) for many years, continuing even when he was blind in his old age.
At Sand Creek. Illinois, August 17, 1889, a fiery young preacher - Daniel Sommer - called for a rupture of fellowship with all who adopted instrumental music in worship. "....that we can not and will not regard them as brethren." In 1904, the two factions at Sand Creek took their case to the courts in order to retain control over the church property, since it was obvious that the two wings could never worship in harmony. The case went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, who decided in the favor of the non-instrument group. They received possession of the Christian Church building at Sand Creek.
Then in 1906 David Lipscomb (editor of the Gospel Advocate paper) instructed the US Census that the Church of Christ (non-instrument) was a separate and distinct organization no longer connected with the Christian Churches.
"Each time some new interpretation of Scripture is espoused, a wall is built, shutting out all who do not accept it." Dennis Loyd, Gospel Advocate 8-04
History shows this to be true. For example, among the heirs of Stone-Campbell, the issue of "instrumental music" had been "cussed and discussed" for some years. Some used it and some opposed it. Yet at Sand Creek, IL, 1889, Daniel Sommer erected a wall by breaking fellowship over the issue, making this a matter of The Faith. It wasn't enough to reject the instrument, it became necessary to condemn and disfellowship all who used it. When "non-instrument" changed to "anti-instrument" it became an "unwritten creed" which was imposed to force compliance. This became a "new doctrine."
Daniel Sommer expected his move to unite the brotherhood. However his understanding of "Bible authority" opened the way for additional division. [Jesus warned against the "leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:12), which distorted things.] Sommer said later: "If the Lord had told us to splinter into as many factions as possible, we could not have done a worse job." He said: "The New Testament is the Book we disagree over." He published an article in his paper, "The American Christian Review" in June, 1932: "Can't we agree on anything?"
That our readers may see the real extremes to which the party spirit will carry men, we reproduce herewith an appeal from "The Warrior," published in the issue of August 1, 1959: "Brethren: We wish to compile and publish a list of LOYAL congregations. We want to make a directory of loyal congregations for the benefit of the traveling brethren who wish to worship with loyal congregations; secondly, for the benefit of brethren who are desirous of moving to a loyal congregation. To compile this directory we need the following information. Describe every act of worship in your assemblies. Describe your position on the Communion. Do you have one or two communions on Sunday? Do you use only one cup and one loaf? Do you fellowship the Sunday School or clips brethren? Do you fellowship the Old Paths Advocate? Or other digressives? Do you advocate any doctrine or act of worship that is called a hobby by most of the brotherhood? If you want to be counted among the honored few, give us correct answers to all of our questions, otherwise you will be left out of our directory.... Are you living in a state of division, having pulled off from another congregation? Please answer all questions. Do you contend that the cup must have a handle on it? Do you contend the cup must not have a handle on it?"
Look at: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/forum/reflect.html
Daniel Sommer
to Gene West
4-2-07
Greetings from The Bend of The River, Barbour County, WVa. R.D.Ice
It is interesting you invoke the name of Daniel Sommer. He was a man of influence, equal to David Lipscomb in many ways. He was "located" at Reynoldsburg, Ohio at one time (my home congregation). I wrote: "Some of this history comes from DANIEL SOMMER, A BIOGRAPHY compiled by WILLIAM E. WALLACE, c. 1969." I have put together the following history.
Daniel Sommer was a unique personality. Born of German immigrant parents, on January 11, 1850, he lived for ninety years, and formed a human bridge between the early restoration pioneers and the 1900s. He was contemporary with Alexander Campbell for sixteen years, and entered Bethany College four years after the death of its founder. A rather slow, but methodical student, he resolved to master the content of divine revelation and to proclaim it "without fear or favor." He viewed the spirit of departure from the original design of the scriptures [as he saw it] as a sad and doleful commentary on the influence of pride and ambition among the disciples of Christ and began to raise his voice against the innovations he felt would make impossible the "return to the primitive order of things."
Reynoldsburg, Ohio, was made famous among the "disciples" [those of the Stone - Campbell Movement, who were united as one at that time] by a debate between Elder Benjamin Franklin (of the Church of Christ) and an Elder Thompson (of the Regular Baptist Church). As I remember being told, this debate must have been sometime in the late 1860's. The Reynoldsburg Church of Christ grew out of this. The original frame building was erected on Walnut Street.
Daniel Sommer speaks of being called to Reynoldsburg in the autumn of 1879 to conduct a Gospel Meeting. The meeting lasted four weeks and twenty or more were baptized. He was invited to "locate" at Reynoldsburg. In 1880 Daniel, with his wife and four little boys, moved to Reynoldsburg, to "half of an old hotel with sunken foundations" that the brethren had rented for them. The town had some six hundred inhabitants in a rural setting. It was ten miles from the center of Columbus. They stayed with Elder William Sprague until their furniture arrived. It had been shipped by rail from Chester County, PA, to Columbus, Ohio, and then out to Brice Station (about four miles from Reynoldsburg). Sommer lived at Reynoldsburg from May 1880 to August 1884. He preached probably two Sundays each month there, and the other time was involved in evangelistic efforts in surrounding counties.
I remember being told of a Gospel Meeting which Sommer held at Mount Pleasant, near Lancaster, OH. As Sommer walked down the street, a shower of rain came up, and he was sprinkled by it. Some townspeople were watching. "Why Brother Sommer, I didn't think you believed in sprinkling!" Sommer turned. "I don't object to sprinkling when it is administered by the Lord." He walked on.
There were elders at times, and the church would grow, then be set back by problems. Bro. Sommer mentions internal conflicts while he was there. Probably personality conflicts and disagreements are the usual church problems."
Sommer maintained great control over many by means of his Papers (such as The Octographic Review, The American Christian Review). He raised "issues" expecting to weld the churches who agreed with him into a solid unit honoring the Lord. But things did not go as he expected. Look at: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/people/dsommer.html There was sectarian conflict among the churches and even among his own family. Austen Sommer, his son, raised even more issues ("mutual edification") and began his own paper, "The Macedonian Call."
'"Can't We Agree On Anything" was an article in Sommer's Paper. He (or his editor) said: "To those of the churches of Christ who desire a plan for Unity, we submit the following for your consideration. We cry 'Unity,' and say that Unity can be obtained only on a New Testament basis; and yet the New Testament is the Book we disagree on. If we can search out the things we can agree on, and unite on them, and work together, we'll have Unity!" The "Rough Draft" grew out of this list of things agreed upon. But Many, whose opinions had been formed by Sommer, threw up their hands in horror! Sommer had written a creed! One of his own children, D. Austin Sommer, started an opposition paper, "The Macedonian Call." The net effect of this was to increase the problem of disunity. The Restoration Movement had once again shot itself in the foot.
In 1933 Daniel Sommer, then eighty-three years of age made a preaching tour of the South. He spoke at David Lipscomb College and at many churches in the Southland. The time was coming when Daniel Sommer was beginning to realize that he should not force his opinions on others. This is not to say that he changed his views on anything, only to say that he put them in their proper perspective.
In the '30's and '40's there were efforts made to unite the parties of the Restoration Movement. James DeForrest Murch and Claude Witty led theses. They held Unity Meetings in many cities. Daniel Sommer was among the speakers. In his old age he still had all his mental faculties, although he was blind. Allen R. Sommer, writing in the American Christian Review, dated January, February, March 1965, writes the following. "He had attended a Witty-Murch unity meeting of several days in this city (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1939). Spoke along with Morris, Murch, Boles, Witty, Errett and McMillian. Jorgenson led some singing. No instrumental music. It was in a Christian Church building, too. Some free-for-all discussions livened the occasion. When one such seemed getting out of control, Don Carlos Janes brought order when he pleaded, 'Brethren, let us pray.'"
As the apostle John wrote, we are simultaniously justified and sinner (1 John 1:7-10). We sometimes build with "gold, silver, precious stones," but at other times with "wood, hay, straw," and "the fire will test each one's work" 1 Cor. 3:10-17. We trust in the "righteousness which is by faith" Phil. 3:9-11. R.D.Ice
4-2-07
Greetings from The Bend of The River, Barbour County, WVa. R.D.Ice
It is interesting you invoke the name of Daniel Sommer. He was a man of influence, equal to David Lipscomb in many ways. He was "located" at Reynoldsburg, Ohio at one time (my home congregation). I wrote: "Some of this history comes from DANIEL SOMMER, A BIOGRAPHY compiled by WILLIAM E. WALLACE, c. 1969." I have put together the following history.
Daniel Sommer was a unique personality. Born of German immigrant parents, on January 11, 1850, he lived for ninety years, and formed a human bridge between the early restoration pioneers and the 1900s. He was contemporary with Alexander Campbell for sixteen years, and entered Bethany College four years after the death of its founder. A rather slow, but methodical student, he resolved to master the content of divine revelation and to proclaim it "without fear or favor." He viewed the spirit of departure from the original design of the scriptures [as he saw it] as a sad and doleful commentary on the influence of pride and ambition among the disciples of Christ and began to raise his voice against the innovations he felt would make impossible the "return to the primitive order of things."
Reynoldsburg, Ohio, was made famous among the "disciples" [those of the Stone - Campbell Movement, who were united as one at that time] by a debate between Elder Benjamin Franklin (of the Church of Christ) and an Elder Thompson (of the Regular Baptist Church). As I remember being told, this debate must have been sometime in the late 1860's. The Reynoldsburg Church of Christ grew out of this. The original frame building was erected on Walnut Street.
Daniel Sommer speaks of being called to Reynoldsburg in the autumn of 1879 to conduct a Gospel Meeting. The meeting lasted four weeks and twenty or more were baptized. He was invited to "locate" at Reynoldsburg. In 1880 Daniel, with his wife and four little boys, moved to Reynoldsburg, to "half of an old hotel with sunken foundations" that the brethren had rented for them. The town had some six hundred inhabitants in a rural setting. It was ten miles from the center of Columbus. They stayed with Elder William Sprague until their furniture arrived. It had been shipped by rail from Chester County, PA, to Columbus, Ohio, and then out to Brice Station (about four miles from Reynoldsburg). Sommer lived at Reynoldsburg from May 1880 to August 1884. He preached probably two Sundays each month there, and the other time was involved in evangelistic efforts in surrounding counties.
I remember being told of a Gospel Meeting which Sommer held at Mount Pleasant, near Lancaster, OH. As Sommer walked down the street, a shower of rain came up, and he was sprinkled by it. Some townspeople were watching. "Why Brother Sommer, I didn't think you believed in sprinkling!" Sommer turned. "I don't object to sprinkling when it is administered by the Lord." He walked on.
There were elders at times, and the church would grow, then be set back by problems. Bro. Sommer mentions internal conflicts while he was there. Probably personality conflicts and disagreements are the usual church problems."
Sommer maintained great control over many by means of his Papers (such as The Octographic Review, The American Christian Review). He raised "issues" expecting to weld the churches who agreed with him into a solid unit honoring the Lord. But things did not go as he expected. Look at: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/people/dsommer.html There was sectarian conflict among the churches and even among his own family. Austen Sommer, his son, raised even more issues ("mutual edification") and began his own paper, "The Macedonian Call."
'"Can't We Agree On Anything" was an article in Sommer's Paper. He (or his editor) said: "To those of the churches of Christ who desire a plan for Unity, we submit the following for your consideration. We cry 'Unity,' and say that Unity can be obtained only on a New Testament basis; and yet the New Testament is the Book we disagree on. If we can search out the things we can agree on, and unite on them, and work together, we'll have Unity!" The "Rough Draft" grew out of this list of things agreed upon. But Many, whose opinions had been formed by Sommer, threw up their hands in horror! Sommer had written a creed! One of his own children, D. Austin Sommer, started an opposition paper, "The Macedonian Call." The net effect of this was to increase the problem of disunity. The Restoration Movement had once again shot itself in the foot.
In 1933 Daniel Sommer, then eighty-three years of age made a preaching tour of the South. He spoke at David Lipscomb College and at many churches in the Southland. The time was coming when Daniel Sommer was beginning to realize that he should not force his opinions on others. This is not to say that he changed his views on anything, only to say that he put them in their proper perspective.
In the '30's and '40's there were efforts made to unite the parties of the Restoration Movement. James DeForrest Murch and Claude Witty led theses. They held Unity Meetings in many cities. Daniel Sommer was among the speakers. In his old age he still had all his mental faculties, although he was blind. Allen R. Sommer, writing in the American Christian Review, dated January, February, March 1965, writes the following. "He had attended a Witty-Murch unity meeting of several days in this city (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1939). Spoke along with Morris, Murch, Boles, Witty, Errett and McMillian. Jorgenson led some singing. No instrumental music. It was in a Christian Church building, too. Some free-for-all discussions livened the occasion. When one such seemed getting out of control, Don Carlos Janes brought order when he pleaded, 'Brethren, let us pray.'"
As the apostle John wrote, we are simultaniously justified and sinner (1 John 1:7-10). We sometimes build with "gold, silver, precious stones," but at other times with "wood, hay, straw," and "the fire will test each one's work" 1 Cor. 3:10-17. We trust in the "righteousness which is by faith" Phil. 3:9-11. R.D.Ice
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
