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