Transcript Division in the Church - Faulkner University

History in the Remaking?
Why is it important for us to know and to
remember the past?
Various reasons have been given; you are
familiar with some of the famous answers:
– “Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana
– “To be ignorant of what happened before you
were born is to remain a child always.”
Cicero
– “Knowing the past can change the future.”
Historians
History in the Remaking?
Sometimes everyday experiences with the
young shock us into the reality of how important
knowledge of the past is.
“Two summers ago, I returned home from a trip
to Berlin with a fragment of the now vanished
Berlin Wall as a silly tourist gift for a bright
college student of my acquaintance. The gift
brought a question to mind. ‘How’d that wall get
there in the first place?’” (D. J. Tice (Editorial
writer for the St. Paul Pioneer Press), “Nation’s
Ignorance of History Hurts,” Newspaper Column
12/22/94
History in the Remaking?
One reason is biblical.
Take the place of remembering and its link to
faith and obedience. You cannot have faith or
obedience without remembering—and the
principal example is the Lord’s Supper.
In the OT, it’s the Passover (and the other
festivals), the various monuments (piles of
stones) and more.
Deut. 8:2 “And you shall remember the whole
way that the Lord your God has led you these
forty years in the wilderness, that he might
humble you, testing you to know what was in
your heart, whether you would keep his
commandments or not.”
History in the Remaking?
One reason is biblical.
It is instructive just to check a big
concordance for “remember” in the OT.
Do you remember Stephen’s sermon in
Acts 7? History.
Do you remember Paul’s sermon at
Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13? History.
Can you imagine?? To get the Jews to
listen, they used history!!
History in the Remaking?
Furman Kearley and the Dec. 1991 issue
of the Gospel Advocate, “The Restoration
Principle: Getting Back on Course”
“The Restoration Principle as Preached by
the Prophets”—Rex A. Turner, Sr.
“Jesus’ Use of the Restoration Principle”
“………As Illustrated in Early Church
History”
“……….As Illustrated by the Reformation.”
Division in the Church
History in the Remaking?
The 1906 Census
What division?
The division which took place over time in
the late 1800s but is conveniently marked
by historians at 1906.
The census bureau gave official
recognition to the reality of a division
between the Christian Churches and
churches of Christ in its 1906 religious
census, which was published in 1910.
The 1906 Census
On June 17, 1907, S. N. D. North, the Director of the
Census, wrote David Lipscomb and asked whether there
was a religious body called “church of Christ,” not
identified with the Disciples of Christ, or any other Baptist
body.”
And if there was such a church, North wanted
information about its organization and principles, and
how the Census Bureau could secure a complete list of
churches.
Replying to North’s letter, Lipscomb outlined the basic
principles of the Restoration Movement as formulated in
Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address and
charged that those principles had been betrayed when
the missionary society and the instrument had been
introduced and that division had resulted.
David Lipscomb
(1831-1917)
The 1906 Census
Lipscomb explained:
“The polity of the churches being purely congregational,
the influences work slowly and the division comes
gradually. The parties are distinguished as they call
themselves “conservatives” and “progressives,” as they
call each other “antis” and “digressives.”
“In many places the differences have not as yet resulted
in separation. There are some in the conservative
churches in sympathy with the progressives, who
worship and work with the conservatives because they
have no other church facilities. The reverse of this is
also true. Many of the conservatives are trying to
appropriate the name “churches of Christ” to distinguish
themselves from “Christian or Disciples” Churches.”
The 1906 Census
A few months later, North visited the Advocate
office and arranged for J. W. Shepherd, one of
Lipscomb’s co-editors, to compile a list of the
churches of Christ for the census report.
The Shepherd count was inexact, but even so,
the 1906 census revealed two significant facts
about the division in the Restoration Movement:
1) The Christian Churches were the larger body
(982,701 members for Christian Churches,
159,658 for churches of Christ); and 2) Christian
Churches had won the North, while churches of
Christ found their numbers concentrated in the
South (across the Midwest they outnumbered
churches of Christ 19 to 1).
J. W. Shepherd
Why the Division?
First, it should be noted that the break did not
come about in a few months or even a few
years.
1906 was much more a formal and symbolic
date for the division than a literal date.
One could argue that the division had been in
process for nearly 60 years.
Why the division?
– There were several symptoms but one basic root
cause.
– First the symptoms.
Why the Division?
Missionary Societies. Not very long after the
union of the Stone and Campbell movements
early in 1831 Alexander Campbell decided that if
the movement was to have significant effect on
the new nation it must be organized. In a
lengthy series of articles in the Millennial
Harbinger in the 1830s and again in the 1840s
Campbell strongly urged the brotherhood to form
a “general organization” among the churches.
The result was that the American Christian Bible
Society was formed in 1845 and the American
Christian Missionary Society was formed in
1849.
Why the Division?
The society never had the support of the entire
brotherhood. Jacob Creath, Jr. was an early
critic. In the 1820s when Campbell was
publishing the Christian Baptist he had
denounced missionary societies. He said the
churches of the NT age “were not fractured into
missionary societies,” for they “knew nothing of
the hobbies of modern times.” They dared not
“transfer to a missionary society, or Bible society,
or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in
so doing they should rob the church of its glory
and exalt the inventions of men above the
wisdom of God. In their church capacity alone
they moved.”
Jacob Creath, Jr.
Why the Division?
Creath reminded Campbell of these earlier
views, “If you were right in the Christian Baptist,
you are wrong now. If you are right now, you
were wrong then. Churches and groups of
churches adopted resolutions opposing the
missionary society. The best known example of
this is that from the church in Connelsville, PA,
which said that the church was “not a missionary
society, but emphatically and pre-eminently the
missionary society—the only one authorized by
Jesus Christ.”
Why the Division?
Perhaps the most important opponent of the missionary
society in the pre-Civil War years was Tolbert Fanning,
probably the most influential preacher in the South
during the 1850s and 1860s. When the society was
formed Fanning was elected a vice president though he
was not present. He supported the society through the
early 1850s but came to question the NT authority for it.
He founded the Gospel Advocate in 1855 with the “chief
purpose” being to examine the subjects of church
organization and Christian cooperation. The content of
his early articles in the Advocate was strikingly similar to
that of Campbell in the early Christian Baptist.
Tolbert Fanning
(1810-1874)
Why the Division?
Fanning wrote, “The Church of God is the only divinely
authorized Missionary, bible, Sunday School and
Temperance Society; the only institution in which the
Heavenly Father will be honored . . . and through no
other agency can man glorify his Maker.”
Fanning addressed the missionary society convention in
1859 and took advantage of the occasion to explain that
many Southern Christians could not conscientiously
support the society. Further, he explained how three
Tennessee congregations were cooperating “as
churches, without the aid of a Missionary Society” to
support J. J. Trott in mission work among the Cherokee
Indians.
Why the Division?
Fanning went on to say, “But I am happy
to say, that from what I have heard on this
floor, we are one people. With us all there
is one faith, one God, one body and one
spirit.” Differences on a significant issue
had not yet produced division.
Why the Division?
Instrumental Music. Instrumental music was not used, or
its use even discussed, in the early days of the
Restoration Movement. The first discussion came in
1851 when a reader asked the editor of the
Ecclesiastical Reformer if its use would not add
solemnity to worship. The editor, J. B. Henshall, spoke
against it, but carried some articles by others favoring its
use. Seeing those articles, John Rogers wrote Campbell
asking his opinion. Campbell replied that if churches
had “no real devotion or spirituality in them,” instrumental
music might be “an essential prerequisite to devotion.”
But he added, “To all spiritually-minded Christians, such
aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.” After that the
question was not discussed for ten years.
Why the Division?
As far as is known, the first congregation to
introduce instrumental music (a small melodeon)
into the worship was the Midway, KY church
around 1860. Dr. L. L. Pinkerton, the preacher,
writing in 1860 claimed to be the only preacher
in KY to advocate it and Midway the only
congregation to introduce it. The reason was
poor singing which was so bad it would “scare
even the rats from worship.”
Dr. L. L. (Lewis Lettig)
Pinkerton
(1812-1875)
Why the Division?
The first extended discussion of the music question
came in 1864-65. W. K. Pendleton, editor of the
Millennial Harbinger after Campbell and also Campbell’s
son-in-law, conceded that instrumental music was not
used in the early centuries of Christian history, but
nevertheless said it was a matter of “mere expediency.”
Isaac Errett, editor of the Christian Standard, in 1870
counseled the churches against introducing the
instrument on the basis of the law of love—that its use
would disrupt the unity of the church. He said, “We have
no conscientious scruples against the use of
instruments.”
W. K. Pendleton
Isaac Errett
(1820-1888)
Why the Division?
(One can’t help but note that already in our
own city brothers have indicated that they
would not introduce instruments though
they did not believe the use of them to be
wrong.)
Benjamin Franklin realized that when
brotherhood attitudes changed, Errett’s
advice would also change.
Benjamin Franklin
(1812-1878)
Why the Division?
Central Christian Church. In Feb. 1872 the Central
Christian Church in Cincinnati, OH dedicated a new
building. (The Central church building had been the
meeting place of the missionary society.) It was the
largest church building in Cincinnati (seating over 2000),
had the largest stained glass window in the country, cost
of $140,000 and had an $8,000 organ. Benjamin
Franklin called it a “temple of folly and pride” and said he
would blush to speak of the “ancient order” or the
“gospel restored” in such a place. In a week of
preaching that opened the building, Baptist, Methodist
and Congregationalist preachers had been used. (I can’t
help but note that similar things again have been done in
our own city, to so say nothing of joint worship services
with various denominations in other cities.)
Central Christian Church
Cincinnati, Ohio
Why the Division?
Liberalism in the Christian Church. While it was still in
the process of dividing from the churches of Christ, the
Christian Church began to feel the strain of serious
internal tensions. The root of the problem was
theological liberalism. The new liberal theology and
higher Biblical criticism, which had arisen in Germany
and moved to England and then the U.S., was widely
accepted by American Protestants in the 1880s and
1890s and the Christian Churches did not escape its
influence.
While not the first to accept conclusions of Biblical
criticism, Dr. R. C. Cave shocked the brotherhood in
1889 with a sermon which openly denied the biblical
story of creation, the account of the flood and such
fundamental doctrines as the virgin birth and bodily
resurrection.
R. C. Cave
Why the Division?
Cave said, “He who brings himself, according to his
measure of knowledge and ability, into obedience to the
will of Christ and into oneness of life and character, with
Christ, is a Christian.”
David Lipscomb responded to such events as this and it
is interesting to note in this period that he wrote many
articles in the Advocate on the role of women.
Ahead of his time, Cave soon left the church, but after
the Disciples Divinity House was established at the U. of
Chicago in 1894, many young men from the Christian
Churches began doing graduate work in religion at
Chicago and Yale.
Why the Division?
As a result, theological liberalism was
soon widespread among the Disciples.
The liberals had a strong editorial
champion after 1908 when Charles
Clayton Morrison became editor of the
Christian Century. Later this publication
severed its ties with the Disciples and
became the voice of liberal Protestantism
in America and it still is today—97 years
and counting.
Why the Division?
But the above items are symptoms, not the root
cause.
The root cause, to which Lipscomb had alluded
in his letter to S. N. D. North, was that the basic
NT principles of unity through restoration had
been abandoned. The long controversy had
focused on the missionary society and
instrumental music, but the basic problem
underlying these two issues was the rise of two
antagonistic interpretations of the restoration
principle.
Why the Division?
Alexander Campbell had formulated the
strict view in the Christian Baptist when he
insisted that the NT was a blueprint for the
church and that any practice not specified
in this pattern was forbidden.
Later, as the movement grew and the first
traces of a denominational mentality
began to appear, many interpreted the
restoration principle less rigidly by allowing
many practices as “expedients.”
Why the Division?
The basic issue was the same whether the
practice in question was the society or the
organ.
They were defended as “expedients,” and
opposed by others as unauthorized by the NT
pattern.
Moses Lard proved to be correct when he
warned in 1869 that “expediency” might be the
rock on which the Restoration Movement went to
pieces.
Moses Lard
(1818-1880)
Why the Division?
Open Membership.
When division was recognized in the 1906 census, it was
a division with the churches of Christ on one side and
Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ on the other.
But there was already turmoil on the Christian/Disciple
side.
In just two decades, with the increasingly liberal direction
taken by the Disciples (and specifically the practice of
“open membership” (accepting the unimmersed to
church membership) by liberal missionaries on the
foreign mission fields, Christian Churches/Disciples of
Christ divided.
Why the Division?
The “Conservative” or “Independent” Christian
churches broke away in 1927 and formed the
North American Christian Convention.
By 1955 the North American Convention had its
own yearbook of “loyal” ministers, churches and
agencies.
With the culmination of the Disciples
“restructure” in 1968 and the formation of a fullfledged denomination (Christian
Church/Disciples of Christ) the separation was
complete and official.
Disciples of Christ
Osborn one of editors of 3-vol. restudy
of the Disciples (1963).
“Many of the papers constituting this
volume and the two succeeding
volumes in this series explicitly
repudiate restorationism, as do
numerous other studies recently written
by Disciple scholars. as an
interpretation of apostolicity, restoration
is no longer feasible.” The Reformation
of Tradition, p. 318.
Disciples of Christ
Ralph Wilburn, Dean of Lexington
Theological Seminary, wrote in the
same volume, “The restoration idea is
basically a false concept. . . . It would
seem wise to abandon the use of the
term altogether.”
Why the Division?
No Place for Compromise
There is also a lesson to be learned about the
ultimate futility of trying to work with both
extremes.
J. W. McGarvey, one of the great Biblical
scholars of the 19th c., head of the College of
the Bible and preacher for the Broadway
congregation in Lexington, KY, left the Broadway
congregation in 1902 when it brought in the
organ.
At about the same time he shared his
disillusionment with Jesse P. Sewell.
J. W. McGarvey
(1829-1911)
Jesse P. Sewell
Why the Division?
McGarvey told Sewell, “You are on the right
road, and whatever you do, don’t let anybody
persuade you that you can successfully combat
error by fellowshipping it and going along with it.
I have tried. I believed at the start that was the
only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in
a congregation that uses instrumental music. I
have, however, accepted invitations to preach
without distinctions between churches that used
it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with
their papers and magazines and things of that
sort. During all these years I have
Why the Division?
taught the truth as the New Testament
teaches to every young preacher who has
passed through the College of the Bible.
Yet, I do not know of more than six of
those men who are preaching the truth
today. It won’t work.”
(J. P. Sewell, “Biographical Sketches
of Restoration Preachers,” Harding
College Lectures, 1950, p. 75).
Why Bother With History?
Why look at these lessons?
Because today’s church culture is shockingly
similar to that of the last part of the 19th century.
As they did, we face churches that practice open
membership, fellowship with error and employ
worship styles that are producing dissension and
divisions.
Once more biblical authority is minimized or
disregarded.
Why Bother With History?
Accepting the Unimmersed (“Open Membership”).
Today some in churches of Christ advocate that pious,
unimmersed people are saved, brothers in Christ, and
fully members of the church.
Rubel Shelly and John York in The Jesus Proposal argue
that churches of Christ ought to give up rigid
judgmentalism and embrace a generous spirit toward
those in various denominations (pp. 171-179).
John Mark Hicks in his book, Down in the River to Pray,
holds that salvation is a process rather than an event
and the transformed unimmersed ought to be included in
the grace of God (pp. 179-199).
Why Bother With History?
All these authors admit that baptism is immersion.
They claim that they teach immersion for the remission
of sins, but in practice they fellowship the sprinkled and
those who believe they are saved before immersion.
We wonder by what principle of interpretation one can
substitute a human practice for a biblical one.
What commandment of God may any person ignore,
dismiss or disobey and still remain pleasing to God?
By what authority can we dismiss immersion for “general
obedience”?
If a person believes and is baptized, can we propose an
alternative to repentance?
Why Bother With History?
Instruments of Music in Worship.
Just as the Disciples a century ago believed they could
embrace instruments of music in worship, so some today
are embracing them.
Weary arguments on psallo and psalmos have spread
widely, as if they had never been answered.
Christian concerts with instrumentation appear on our
college campuses and at large youth rallies.
The desire for instruments arose in the 1800s when
proponents introduced them to our Sunday schools so
that our youth could learn to sing better; in time they
reasoned that if they could do it in class, they could also
do it in the worship assembly.
Why Bother With History?
Today our youth are desensitized by
contemporary Christian music.
The distinctions between entertainment and
worship have become so blurred that many of
the naïve hardly know the difference.
Teachers and youth leaders quietly tell their
students that Jesus did not die over instrumental
music, so whether we use it or not is not a
“salvation issue”.
Why Bother With History?
Other Practices.
In the last year, the number of congregations
overtly preaching and practicing unbiblical
doctrines has increased dramatically.
An increasing number of churches, both large
and small, urban and rural, are practicing
doctrines such as:
Why Bother With History?
Worshipping with instruments
Encouraging women to lead publicly in worship and
teaching
Substituting Saturday worship as an acceptable
replacement for worship on the
Lord’s Day
Observing the Lord’s Supper at any time the time seems
right
Aligning themselves with denominational congregations
in work and worship with the implication being that their
differences in doctrine are inconsequential preferences
Changing the name of their congregation because of the
“baggage” associated with the name “church of Christ”
Why Bother With History?
Just as the “symptom” doctrines and
practices in the late 1800s were signs of a
fundamental cause—the differing views
regarding the authority of Scripture--so,
contemporary differences in doctrine and
practice grow out of conflicting
understandings of the authority of
Scripture.
Why Bother With History?
It is now 2005, but the same issues confront us that
confronted our brethren a century earlier.
How will we respond?
Will we claim we want unity, but sacrifice our brethren to
follow after our personal preferences and desires?
Will we seek unity with other groups by compromising
our beliefs or convincing ourselves that “they aren’t
salvation issues”?
Will we cave in to the culture of the day and change the
teaching of Scripture so that we can be more effective in
reaching the unchurched?
Why Bother With History?
What Are We To Do?
The story of the differing and antagonistic interpretations
of the restoration principle is clear and the story of the
resulting consequences in the three bodies that share a
common history in the American Restoration Movement
are just as clear.
While the circumstances in which we seek to shepherd
may be complex, challenging and downright dangerous,
the question, I think, is simple.
Do we want to see history repeat itself in the
congregations we lead?
I hope you will give it serious consideration.
My answer is absolutely not!!