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