Introduction
1. IT BEGAN IN SCOTLAND
   
2. THOMAS CAMPBELL WRITES HIS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
   
3. THE SPIRIT OF THE "DECLARATION AND ADDRESS"
   
4. PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCUMENT
   
5. HISTORIC NOTES ON OUR FIRST CHURCH
   
6. "LET CHRISTIAN UNITY BE OUR POLAR STAR"
   
7. THE NOBLEST ACT IN BARTON STONE'S LIFE
   
8. LEARNING FROM A BACKWOODS PREACHER
   
9. CHRISTIANS IN BABYLON
   
10. WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
    
11. THE ESSENCE OF THE CAMPBELL PLEA
    
12. THE DEATH OF A DREAM
    
13. THE SAND CREEK ADDRESS
    
14. A MUDDLED MOVEMENT
    
15. THE AUTHORITY TOTEM
    
16. THE PARTY SPIRIT
    
17. THE BED OF PROCRUSTES
    
18. OUR COSTLIEST SIN: EXCLUSIVISM
    
19. RESTORATION OR REFORMATION
    
20. A BOY LEARNS THE MEANING OF BROTHERHOOD
    
21. THE BUTTING BRETHREN
    
22. ANALYSIS OF LEGALISM
    
23. THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
    
24. THOUGHTS ON FELLOWSHIP
    
25. ON THE ROCKS
    
26. WITHDRAWING FROM THE DISORDERLY
    
27. CAUSING DIVISIONS
    
28. TWO GREAT ERRORS
    
29. UNION IN TRUTH
    
30. ONE BODY IN CHRIST
    
31. UNITY AND IDENTITY
    
32. UNITY IN DIVERSITY
    
33. IS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?
    
34. THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS
    
35. MUST WE GIVE UP OUR OPINIONS?
    
36. WHAT DIFFERENCES DO DIFFERENCES MAKE?
    
37. THE "ONE BAPTISM" AND FELLOWSHIP
    
38. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE UNIMMERSED?
    
39. OUR FATHERS ON "WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?"
    
40. "OUR BROTHERS IN THE DENOMINATIONS"
    
41. WHAT IS "OUR FELLOWSHIP"?
    
42. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
    
43. I WOULD ABDICATE
    
44. A BASIC FALLACY TO OVERCOME
    
45. CAN WE BE UNITED AND NOT KNOW IT?
    
46. SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVIDED
    
47. THE ONE CHURCH INDIVISIBLE
    
48. UNITY WILL COME, BUT
    
49. IF NOT BROTHERHOOD, THEN CO-EXISTENCE
    
50. THIS IS OUR GLORY!
    
51. THE UNIFYING POWER OF THE CROSS
    

THE SAND CREEK ADDRESS

"It is not, therefore, within the province of this court to pronounce judgement upon the doctrines taught by Alexander Campbell and believed and practiced by his followers, or to determine which faction of the Sand Creek congregation, in their practices in their church congregation, from an ecclesiastical standpoint, is correct, as the courts have no concern with the questions whether a religious congregation is progressive or conservative; whether a musical instrument shall be present or absent during church services; whether the preacher shall be selected from the congregation or shall be a person employed by the congregation for a stated time at a stated salary; whether missionary societies and Sunday schools shall have separate organizations from the church congregations or not, of whether the funds necessary for the support of the church shall be contributed wholly by its members or raised in part by fairs and festivals. All these questions, and kindred questions, must be left to the determination of the church congregation."

This is an excerpt from the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois in the case of "The Christian Church of Sand Creek, Shelby County, Illinois, versus The Church of Christ at Sand Creek." The opinion was filed on February 21, 1906. It was read by Mr. Justice Hand with all of the six other justices concurring. This case was typical of many which plagued the heirs of the restoration movement at the dawn of the twentieth century. The decision was presented the same year that David Lipscomb informed the United States Census Bureau that a separate listing under the title "Churches of Christ" should be accorded those congregations which opposed instrumental music and certain other things. Formal decision was now an established fact among those who had started out to answer the prayer of the Savior for the unity of all believers.

The year of 1830 is famous in Illinois history because it marked the arrival of the Lincoln family who migrated from Kentucky, coming by way of Indiana. Many of the Kentuckians came the same year and some of them planted the first congregation of disciples in the state at Jacksonville. Two years later Barton W. Stone moved to Jacksonville and from that time on his Christian Messenger was published there. In 1834 enough of the settlers in Shelby County had been converted to the restoration plea that John Storm and Bushrod Henry organized a congregation at Sand Creek and erected a log meetinghouse. In 1836 Tobias Grider united with the congregation and became its pioneer elder as well as a preacher of the gospel. Sometime later Peter P. Warren became associated with him as an elder and preacher.

There was little in the inception or early history of the rural congregation to indicate that it would have a prominent role in the unfolding drama of strife and division in the ranks of the restoration movement. But fate plays strange tricks and destiny, like lightning, strikes in unexpected places. Almost half a century passed and the little country church swelled again when the maturing young people in the community were immersed at the annual meeting. Many of these were forced to go elsewhere for work but they carried with them the fond memory of the place where they were baptized. Each August the Sand Creek congregation had a special gathering which was virtually a homecoming, a mass meeting attended by hundreds. Homes in the community were thrown wide open in hospitality. Basket dinners were served on Saturday and Sunday under the trees in the yard of the meetinghouse. The surrounding woods were filled with teams that had drawn loaded wagons, buggies and surreys to the scene.

Prominent preachers were secured for this annual event and the influence of the meetings was far-reaching. When the restoration began to be troubled and disturbed by introduction of the innovations that were creeping in, it was decided that Sand Creek was the place best suited to making a stand in opposition to these things. The annual meeting presented an unparalleled opportunity because of the number in attendance and their favorable attitude toward the congregation. The decision was not made hastily. It was discussed fully and deliberately. The leaders of the congregation were encouraged by a thirty-seven year old evangelist who had just purchased the American Christian Review in 1887.

Daniel Sommer was born near Washington, D. C., January 11, 1850, of poverty-stricken German parents. A serious minded youngster, he was induced to unite with the Methodists, but upon learning the plea of the restoration movement, he accepted it. Having a desire to preach the gospel he enrolled in Bethany College where he continued some two years. After the death of Benjamin Franklin at Anderson, Indiana, on October 22, 1878, the paper which he had published became a medium for advertising. The main source of revenue came from manufacturers of patent medicines and nostrums. Daniel Sommer bought the paper with borrowed money and began as editor by discarding all worldly advertisements. The decision to do this created great hardship.

He was assisted in this enterprise by some members at Sand Creek, Illinois, and two of the elders jointly signed a note with him to secure money from a Dr. Oliver, to apply on purchase of the paper. Soon after he assumed editorship he urged the leaders at Sand Creek to "draw a line against the innovators" and proposed to publicize their action as an example to other congregations faced with the same problems. Other congregations in the vicinity of Sand Creek were consulted and expressed a willingness to concur in any action thus taken. It was decided to draw up a document which would recognize "a formal division" and amount to "disfellowship" of those who advocated certain practices. To make it more impressive the statement was to be called "An Address and Declaration." This was a play on the term "Declaration and Address" which was the designation of the famous document presented by Thomas Campbell exactly eighty years before.

Peter P. Warren was selected to write and publicly read the statement. It was agreed that it would be presented on Saturday afternoon, August 17, 1889, and that the reading would be preceded by a discourse on "Innovations" delivered by Daniel Sommer. This procedure was followed and the document was signed by six representatives for the Sand Creek Church, four for the Liberty Church, and one each for the Ash Grove Church, the Union Church, and the Mode Church. An addendum stated, "Elder Colson of Gays, and Elder Hoke of Strickland congregations signed, but as individuals only, because the congregations whence they came, had not been called together so as to send them formally. Green Creek congregation, by a letter from Bro. Jesse Baker, endorsed the movement."

The "Address and Declaration" began with a statement of the original ideals of the disciples in the restoration movement. It pointed out that peace and harmony prevailed so long as these ideals were treasured. It then called attention to some painful facts and considerations made necessary because "there are those among us who teach and practice things not taught nor found in the New Testament."

"Some of the things of which we hereby complain, and against which we protest, are the unlawful methods resorted to in order to raise or get money for religious purposes, namely, that of the church holding festivals of various kinds, in the house of the Lord or elsewhere, demanding sometimes that each participant shall pay a certain sum as an admittance fee; the select choir to the virtual, if not the real, abandonment of congregational singing; likewise the man­made society for missionary work, and the one man imported preacher­pastor to take the oversight of the church. These with many other objectionable and unauthorized things are now taught and practiced in many of the congregations, and that to the great grief and mortification of some of the members of said congregations."

It is interesting to note that the question of instrumental music is not specifically mentioned in the document although it may have been referred to as part of the "many other objectionable and unauthorized things." The aim and intent of the action is specified in the final paragraph.

"It is, therefore, with the view, if possible, of counteracting the usages and practices that have crept into the churches, that this effort on the part of the congregations hereafter named is made, and now, in closing up this address and declaration, we state that we are impelled from a sense of duty to say, that all that 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 time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren."

After Daniel Sommer purchased the American Christian Review he changed its name to Octographic Review, and true to his promise he published the "Address and Declaration" in that paper, with added observations of his own. He pointed out that there had long been discussions about "the question of drawing a line of demarcation between the churches of Christ and our innovating brethren." The matter had even been agitated in columns of the Review ten years before "but it was then thought by the brethren generally that some other solution than a formal division could be reached." He charged the innovating disciples with being "the dividers of the brotherhood" and declared, "They have abandoned our original position and have gone out from us because they were not of us." However, he wrote, "Let it be distinctly understood that we have from the first agitation on this subject been numbered with those who earnestly endeavored to find some other solution of the problem than a formal separation." The editorial concluded in this fashion:

"If this sentence of an inspired apostle be adopted throughout the brotherhood, then the time will come that our Modern School Brethren will have fixed upon them the odium of having by division disgraced the best cause on earth and having thereby become a party among parties, a sect among sects, a denomination among denominations. In the meantime the loyal disciples will become more firmly than ever established in their original principle in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, and endeavoring to establish everywhere the Kingdom of Christ as it was in the beginning. Amen."

The year prior to the one in which Peter P. Warren wrote the "Address and Declaration" was the one in which David Lipscomb, editor of the Gospel Advocate first presented his thesis on "Civil Government" in the Christian Quarterly Review. Having gone through the tragic period of "Reconstruction" following the Civil War, Lipscomb reached the conclusion that all civil government originated with and belonged to Satan and that a Christian could not hold office or even vote at the polls. This view was not generally acceptable in the North and there was a considerable amount of feeling engendered over it and other issues. But David Lipscomb endorsed the "Sand Creek Declaration" and gave his commendation to its authors.

Later on in our investigation we will detail the series of events which led to the Sand Creek church trial, for we cannot ignore this and correctly portray the rise of factionalism. Before doing this, however, it seems appropriate to make some personal observations relative to the "Address and Declaration." Two years after the Supreme Court of Illinois rendered the decision referred to at the outset of this article, I was born in a rude two­room miners shack in the Missouri Lead Belt. At the time my parents knew nothing of the restoration movement. My father was a skeptic, my mother a devout Lutheran with spiritual roots running back to Denmark. My father had finished the third McGuffeys Reader, my mother could not read or write English.

By a chain of circumstances not necessary to detail at this juncture, my father heard and became convicted of the plea of the churches of Christ, and when I was five years old I saw him immersed into our Lord. Although my mother continued in the Lutheran communion until two years after I began preaching the gospel, a profound change came over our family life. The first preachers whom I ever recall seeing were Daniel Sommer and his son, D. Austen Sommer. With an insatiable hunger for knowledge I lay flat on my stomach on the grass for hours, listening as my elders talked while sitting on hickory splint bottom chairs under a shade tree in the yard.

Between the date when the Sand Creek Declaration was read and the time of my birth, all had not been harmonious among the forces opposing innovations. Contrary to expectations "the loyal disciples" had not "become more firmly established in their original principles in contending for the faith." After having said that the most fatal mistake Alexander Campbell made was "the establishment of a school to train and educate young preachers," David Lipscomb himself helped inaugurate the Nashville Bible School. Other schools sprang up, among them "Western Bible and Literary College," at Odessa, Missouri. Daniel Sommer regarded these as "human institutions to do the work of the church," and in the same category as other societies.

Daniel Sommer testified at length in the court case involving Sand Creek and received with much satisfaction the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on February 21, 1906. Less than a year later, on the afternoon of February 18, 1907, he began a debate with B. F. Rhodes at Odessa, Missouri, on the question of "the Biblical right to establish an institution of learning which is chiefly secular, in order to furnish an occasion to teach pupils in the Bible." In 1908 he published a written "Discussion on the Bible School" with J. N. Armstrong. Thus, when I first became aware of the restoration movement I learned to regard it as an attempt to hold the fort against "Old Digressives" and "New Digressives" as the advocates of colleges were designated.

Long before I knew anything about the "Declaration and Address" prepared by Thomas Campbell I was conversant with the "Address and Declaration" written by Peter P. Warren. In my childish mind I conceived of the church of God as having had a perfect and unbroken existence until the introduction of missionary societies and instrumental music. Then the Sand Creek document was conceived in the hearts of true and staunch defenders of the faith and proved to be the thing which salvaged truth from the rude hands of an implacable foe, restoring order out of chaos. That the cause had again been betrayed by a "southern element" was regrettable but not wholly unexpected from those in secessionist states. I grew up under the impression that there were few, if any, "loyal churches" south of the Mason and Dixon Line. Most of their members did not even read the Review.

Now, from more mature years and judgment, I would like to re­examine the decisions made at Sand Creek in 1889. I do this in full recognition of the price that must be paid by any person who questions the traditions of the fathers. I am aware of the fact that one must bear the stigma of "traitor" or "heretic" who dares to challenge the partisan concepts of his associates. But I am committed to an honest search for truth regardless of personal consequences. I cannot live with myself nor be prepared to meet my Lord if I compromise my conviction in a matter so important as this. I have resolved that I will shield no part of my thinking from examination and that I will accept nothing simply because it has been taught by men in the past. My faith must stand, if it stands at all, "in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men."

In my analysis of the rise of factionalism I have come to believe that the philosophy embodied in the Sand Creek Declaration laid the foundation for the subsequent disintegration of the restoration movement. I am not especially concerned with the principals involved except as they were agents to give expression to a general feeling. Neither am I primarily concerned with the document except as it voiced the ideas held by so many. My review is not to be construed as an attack upon either the persons involved or the declaration they made. It is intended to be a searching study into the motivations and implications of thought which crystallized in the address.

For that matter, the document could well have been produced at numerous other places in 1889. The discussion of how to handle the rise of innovationism was rife in the land. In mass meetings held at Moberly and Richmond, Missouri, calls were made for just such a written expression "drawing a line of demarcation." I do not impugn the motives nor question the sincerity of those who signed the document. Far from this, I am certain they did what they believed was best for the cause of Christ out of a deep love for the church of God.

In spite of the devotion of the author and signers the document was the product of fallible men. It originated in the thinking of men and Daniel Sommer referred to it as "the sentiments of the brethren who assemble at Sand Creek." No document of human origin must ever become so sacred that to question it is regarded as sacrilege. We must never confuse "the traditions of the elders" with "the law of God." No human production can ever be elevated to a sacred status without a simultaneous loss of respect for the revelation from heaven. There are those among our contemporaries who deeply resent our current research. They are fearful of the consequences. They would prefer to maintain the status quo even though it involves accepting division than to examine with open minds the factors which produced the tragic condition. Present error has a greater lure than newly­discovered truth.

In our review of the Sand Creek Declaration there is no attempt to condone those things which it condemned. We do not deny that they were innovations and it is evident that they were without scriptural warrant. But there is a difference between those things and the division which resulted from agitation of them. The factional spirit is sinful. The party spirit is a work of the flesh. To oppose evil from a factional standpoint is as wrong as to uphold evil from any standpoint. It is not opposition to evil but the factional spirit which is wrong. It is subversive of the divine government to create a party to oppose wrong. This is a species of doing evil with the hope that good may come.

It is our opinion based upon research into the factors leading to the adoption of the policy of attempting to preserve purity by division, and upon observation of the consequences resulting from application of that policy, that it is factional in nature and essence. It is our further opinion that this policy pursued regularly as a course of action can only culminate in more divisions, and ultimately will counteract and destroy any real spiritual gains made by those who adopt it. We hold the view that this philosophy is without sanction in the sacred scriptures, that it is contrary to the examples given of the primitive ekklesia, and it is in contravention of the purpose of God. It originates in human wisdom prompted by fear. It proposes to maintain what has been gained by regimentation of thought.

There is little to be gained in any final analysis if, in an attempt to keep innovations from destroying the church of God, we adopt those methods which will eventually achieve the same end. If "the church" is destroyed in our generation it matters little whether it is done by those who profess to be "faithful" or by those whom they denounce as "unfaithful." A man is just as dead if shot by a faithful wife as by one who is unfaithful. The restoration movement today is splintered into more than two dozen antagonistic parties. These have been created by application of the philosophy that was adopted by our fathers three­quarters of a century ago. Since the cleavage resulting from introduction of the instrument, those opposed to its use have averaged four partisan divisions for every decade of their separate existence.

This is not all. Other divisions must follow in the future. Every time a truth is discovered, every time honest investigation forces a change of mind, there will be another division. This philosophy bars the door to further scriptural research, makes real unbiased study a crime, and places a premium on mediocrity. It throws a dam across the channel of thought, freezes the acquisition of knowledge, and constitutes an unwritten creed. It makes blind conformity a blessing and enthrones orthodoxy as the ideal. If a system, like a tree, is known by its fruits, we should eliminate this one immediately.

Let us not indulge precious time or waste our efforts in an attempt to establish guilt for what occurred three­quarters of a century in the past. Our brethren were faced with grave and serious problems. They were frightened by an oncoming wave of innovations which would destroy all they held sacred. They had to make a decision as to the best means to withstand the onslaught. Perhaps the choice was exactly the one we would have made at the time and under the circumstances. We have the privilege of looking backward upon the outworking of their method. We can admit all the good that was done through it without perpetuating it if conditions have altered. Radium treatments may be administered to a cancer patient at one stage of his illness but if continued indefinitely may become as harmful as the disease.

I do not regard the Sand Creek Declaration as I once did. I no longer think of it as an embodiment of those means which will provide the proper answer to every situation which confronts us when men advocate things we cannot endorse. It is not a panacea for all of our spiritual ills. Indeed I think it contains within it the seed which, when ripened, may prove as destructive as the innovations it proposed to thwart. The spirit which is entombed within it will force every generation to declare non­fellowship with every preceding one. Under the influence of this thinking no congregation of fifty years ago would be recognized by present day congregations if it taught exactly as it did then, and none existing today will be regarded as faithful fifty years hence. It is doubtful if David Lipscomb or Daniel Sommer would be allowed to speak now in most of the congregations they planted. In view of these statements allow me to make some observations about the address written by Peter P. Warren.

1. The Sand Creek meeting at which the document was signed was essentially a delegate convention. True there were a great many others in attendance but the signers had been formally sent as representatives or delegates of their respective congregations. The congregations had assembled and authorized them to sign in their behalf. It is specifically stated that "the brethren whose names stand alone in signing the document represented the churches from which they came." Of two others it is said they "signed, but as individuals only, because the congregations whence they came, had not been called together so as to send them formally."

Every one of the signers would have opposed a delegate convention to determine policy and did oppose the convention which met in Cincinnati and inaugurated the missionary society. Yet they met at Sand Creek as congregational delegates and entered a coalition, adopting and signing a document which was intended to serve as a policy making instrument in dealing with brethren who were not even present or represented. The editor of Octographic Review wrote, "We endorse the foregoing document as adopted and signed at the Sand Creek meeting." All such meetings are divisive in their outworkings.

2. The Sand Creek Declaration sounded the death knell for the autonomy of the local congregation. Its very purpose was to reach out and discipline, even to the point of excommunication, those not affiliated with the congregations from which the delegates were sent. It was an ultimatum, adopted and published, which intended to transfer into the hands of certain ones the right to determine when others at a distance and not even in their congregations should no longer be regarded as brethren.

The editor of the Octographic Review wrote, "It does not propose to disfellowship any till they have been admonished and refuse to turn from their waywardness." This is a clear admission that it did propose to "disfellowship" certain ones and it placed the judgment as to when to take such action in the hands of those not even remotely connected with the congregations in which some of the "guilty" ones were members. Out of this kind of reasoning grew the idea that one congregation could "disfellowship" another congregation and that the elders of one church could pronounce the sentence of "spiritual death" upon another congregation over which they held not the slightest degree of jurisdiction. Nothing more unscriptural was ever conceived by the minds of partisan men.

It is astounding that men would meet to deal with those who "teach and practice things not taught nor found in the New Testament" and depart so far from both the letter and spirit of the new covenant scriptures. Certainly this declaration was an innovation for which no one could produce a "thus saith the Lord." Eventually, as it always happens, the power of decision became invested in the editor of the official organ and all non­conformists were cut off without trial or appeal. All that was required to drive one forth from the party was a censure by the editor. The unfortunate victim had no recourse. He could not publish a reply to be read before those who had read the censure. The "loyal churches" did not dare call upon him or recognize him. He was given the "deep freeze" treatment by even his former friends. Branded a "traitor, heretic and apostate," he either gave in, gave out, or gave up!

It is appropriate to remark that the Sand Creek Address and Declaration differed from the Declaration and Address written by Thomas Campbell. The purpose of the document written by Campbell was to unite the Christians in all the sects; the purpose of the document written by Peter P.Warren was to call for division among disciples. One was written to remove barriers between brethren, the other to draw a line of demarcation between them. One marked the beginning of a war against the sectarian spirit, the other marked the start of a conflict which would be waged in that spirit.

3. Another feature must not be overlooked. The Sand Creek Declaration laid the foundation of brotherhood based upon conformity in matters of opinion, interpretation and congregational practice. Let me not be misunderstood at this juncture. Such conformity is an ideal for which to strive. Nothing less can be the goal of all who are sincerely interested in restoration of a primitive order. But there is as much difference between the basis of entering family relationship and the aims and ambitions of a family as there is between the basis of acquiring citizenship and national ideals of the citizens in the aggregate.

Regardless of all partisan appeals and propaganda to the contrary brotherhood is the result of common fatherhood. "Now the one who sanctifies and those whom he sanctifies both have the same Father, and thus he is not ashamed to call them his brothers" (Heb. 2:11). We are not unaware that a strain may be put on family ties. We do not doubt that the willful and deliberate advocacy of certain things over the protest of humble brethren in 1889 presented a difficult situation. We do not question the decision as to how to meet the problem. We do not deny that if we had been present we would probably have agreed to the action. We freely admit that for years we implemented the decision in our own conduct toward others, but this does not make it right. We believe that even though we acted sincerely we worked against the interest of peace and unity.

The policy of those opposed to innovations as stated at Sand Creek was that when those who were "guilty of teaching, or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions" had been admonished and given sufficient time for reflection, "if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren." This is the equivalent of declaring that at a certain time to be determined by human judgment those who did not conform to the written ultimatum would be disinherited from the family of God and no longer recognized as His children. To those who protest that this is a forced interpretation it only needs to be pointed out that one would certainly regard as his brothers all who were children of the same father as himself. The statement, "We will not regard them as brethren" is equivalent to saying, "We will not regard them as God's children."

We know that defenders of our traditional position declare that the cause of Christ was saved by the forthright action of our fathers in the dying decades of the nineteenth century. They believe that the drastic steps taken then preserved "the faithful brotherhood." But an unbiased investigation will show that we now have as many "brotherhoods" as we have factions. One who reads the reports in partisan journals will soon learn that "News of the Brotherhood" contains reports only from the limited number who conform to the partisan concepts of the editor. One who learns better is hounded from "the brotherhood" although he is generally received with open arms as a convert into another "brotherhood." This is the natural fruit borne by the philosophy adopted by Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb, which, because of their influence became the official and orthodox policy of the "The Church of Christ." Stripped bare of all extraneous matters it is a philosophy of brotherhood based on conformity of opinion, a relationship that is extended only until others deem that one has had "sufficient time for reflection." It is brotherhood based on the calendar-or clock!

Our problem is augmented because this philosophy sees only two alternatives. It is either accept the innovations which become the pets of men, or no longer accept such men as brethren while they hug their pets to their bosoms. But this is an incorrect assumption. There is another alternative. One may continue to regard men as his brothers while steadfastly refusing to condone or sanction what his heart cannot regard as right or proper. We believe this is the scriptural course. Certainly the first is untenable for we cannot expect that men will endorse that which they believe to be wrong. We think that the second has proven itself to be injudicious and unworkable for it has left a sordid trail of division and has brought the restoration movement itself into disrepute. The first is based on compromise, the second on dogmatism, but the third is the way of love and thus the only way of genuine brotherhood!

4. We believe that our approach to the problem of securing and maintaining purity in doctrine has been factional in nature. This will be denied by hundreds and thousands who have so long defended that policy it will be difficult for them to ever admit they were in error. But the advocacy of any system which proposes to divide God's people into various camps, cliques, splinters and segments, is certainly factional in its working. The truth is that God has not offered division among brethren as a possible solution to problems facing those brethren. The Sand Creek Declaration was written for the specific purpose of recommending separation of a formal nature. The very language used to justify it proves what we allege. Referring to attitudes ten years preceding it is said, "It was then thought by the brethren generally that some other solution than a formal division could be reached." Again it is said, "We have from the first agitation of this subject...endeavored to find some other solution than a formal separation."

The context of these remarks proves that the document was an attempted solution by "formal division" or "formal separation." This could mean nothing other than that from this time on the brethren who had labored and worshiped together would be divided and separated from each other. Now if formal division or separation is authorized by the Father as a means of settling problems in His family the document was justified. But a careful examination of the scriptures will reveal that it is not so. Jude, in his condemnation of those who "walk after their own ungodly lusts" writes: "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit" (verse 19). The RSV translates the passage, "It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit."

Formal division must always create at least two parties of those who have been one. In the type of case before us these will be rival parties. Yet Galatians 5:19­20 affirms, "Now the deeds of the flesh are quite obvious, such as...dissension, jealousy, temper, rivalry, factions, party­spirit...and the like" (James Moffatt). "Anyone can see the kind of behavior that belongs to the lower nature... quarrels, a contentious temper, envy, fits of rage, selfish ambitions, dissensions, party intrigues, jealousies...and the like" (New English Bible). Few of us would dare deny that those on both sides of the feuds in the previous century were affected by one or more of these works of the flesh. Jesus Christ has nowhere authorized his disciples to formally separate from each other. He has repeatedly urged them to attain unto harmony. "Fill up my cup of happiness by thinking and feeling alike, with the same love for one another, the same turn of mind, and a common care for unity. Rivalry and personal vanity should have no place among you" (Phil. 2:2­3).

To those who live in congregations which tolerate false teaching, there is not one single admonition to divide or separate and create rival parties in the same community. Instead Jesus says, "Those who do not accept this teaching and have had no experience of what they like to call the deep secrets of Satan; on you I will impose no further burden. Only hold fast to what you have until I come. To him who is victorious, to him who perseveres in doing my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations" (Rev. 3:24­26). To those who are in a congregation that is pronounced dead, and one which has never completed a single thing it started out to do, there is not a hint of division or separation. Instead the few who are worthy and deserving are promised that He will receive them (Rev. 3:3,4). To a congregation that has divided although they still meet in the same location, the admonition was not to continue in formal separation, but to cease it. "Mend your ways, take our appeal to heart, agree with one another; live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you" (2 Cor. 13:11).

Against this reasoning, those who are advocates of the factional approach to purity of doctrine, urge the words of Jesus, "You must not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a young wife against her mother­in­law, and a man will find his enemies under his own roof" (Matt. 10:34­36). If this means that Jesus came to create division among believers, and to urge brethren to set each other at nought, then his mission is wholly irreconcilable with his work and sayings. Whatever is involved in bringing a sword it refers to his mission on the earth. It was what he came to do.

In Matthew 7:9­11 the heavenly Father is favorably contrasted with physical fathers. "If you, then, bad as you are, know how to give your children what is good for them, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him!" It is inconceivable to me that a father while sitting at the table with his children would hand one of them a dagger or sword and encourage him to slay the others. On the night of his betrayal Jesus prayed that the believers might be one in him so the world would believe that God had sent him. Surely he would not come for the express purpose of setting them against each other. Three times in one week after his resurrection he appeared to the disciples with the greeting, "Peace be with you" (John 20:19, 21, 26). Does this not indicate that he came to bring peace to the disciples?

What did Jesus mean by the statement, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword...and a man will find his enemies under his own roof." The context shows that this was a part of his instructions to the twelve when he commissioned them to go to Jewish towns and villages with the announcement, "The reign of heaven is approaching." They were told, "Be on your guard, for men will hand you over to the courts, they will flog you in the synagogues, and you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, to testify before them and the heathen" (Matt. 10:17, 18). The intensity of the animosity is shown by the fact that "Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child, children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me; but the man who holds out to the end will be saved" (Verses 21­22).

It is in this connection Jesus declares he did not come to bring peace to the earth. The nature of the message is such that it transcends all earthly ties and considerations. But the sword is not to be used by one brother in Christ against another such brother. Brethren are not to settle their difference as enemies under the same roof. The parting gift of Jesus to the disciples was not a sword with which to chop his body to bits. "Peace is my parting gift to you, my own peace, such as the world cannot give. Set your troubled hearts at rest, and banish fears" (John 14:27). Jesus did not shed his blood that his followers should hack each other to pieces over individual cups, fermented wine, colleges and Bible classes!

Again, those who defend the factional approach as a solution to problems, quote James 3:17. "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable." In their interpretation, purity is made to refer to doctrinal matters and is actually conformity to the norm of the party. The degree of purity which one possesses is determined by the intensity with which he opposes missionary societies, instrumental music, Bible classes, individual cups, unfermented wine, or other things of a controversial nature. Thus the standard for measuring purity differs with each faction. What is pure to one may be impure for another.

I recall that in one factional dispute some years ago between brothers in the Lord and in the flesh this passage was constantly quoted to justify separation and division. While all of us should strive to know Gods will and grow in grace and knowledge of the truth, I doubt that James had in mind any justification of the factional attitude. It may be interesting for you to read the comment which Albert Barnes makes on the passage.

"It is true that a church should be pure in doctrinal belief, but that is not the truth taught here. It is not true that the scripture teaches, here or elsewhere, that purity of doctrine is to be preferred to a peaceful spirit; or that it always leads to a peaceful spirit; or that it is proper for professed Christians and Christian ministers to sacrifice, as is so often done, a peaceful spirit, in an attempt to preserve purity of doctrine. Most of the persecutions in the church have grown out of this maxim. This led to the establishment of the Inquisition, this kindled the fires of Smithfield; this inspirited Laud and his friends; this has been the origin of no small part of the schisms in the church. A pure spirit is the best promoter of peace, and will do more than anything else to secure the prevalence of truth."

Does not this passage imply that the first step toward real Christian character is a pure, or sincere heart? In the same context James contrasts the wisdom that is earthly and declares that it is the motivating factor in those who have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts (verse 14). In verse 16 he says, "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice." Then he continues, "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity." Do not all of these proceed from pure hearts that are purged of "bitter jealousy and selfish ambition?" Surely every congregation should be as pure in doctrine as possible and they need to make those alterations and changes which will help them to attain to greater purity, but to quote this verse as grounds for division among believers in Jesus seems to me to do a grave injustice to the sacred scriptures. We ought not to forget that the very next verse reads, "And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." But even God could not write a law which was a safeguard against the spirit of factionalism.

In the next issue I shall deal with the partisan tactics exhibited by those who introduced the "innovations" against which the Sand Creek Declaration was directed. The leaders forsook all semblance of brotherly love and deliberately sought by the arm of the civil law to take the property long held by those whose consciences forbad their sanction and adoption of certain things. This crystallized community and family feelings and doomed the restoration movement to an incessant civil war carried on by snipers and guerillas until this very generation. It was an ill­advised move taken by those who proved beyond doubt that "the party spirit" is indeed a "work of the flesh."

I am committed to the task of pleading for unity among the believers. I am convinced this can only be achieved by a restoration of the primitive order. This prompts me to oppose anything, in tendency or in fact, which will delay such restoration. I do not plead for unity regardless of restoration nor for restoration irrespective of unity. My plea is for unity based upon restoration of apostolic order and principle. This includes a restoration of the apostolic concept of brotherhood. It follows that I am not only opposed to those things which will obstruct restoration but I am also opposed to those methods which will destroy any hope of unity.

While I deplore the introduction of any innovation which seriously affects an attempt to restore the primitive order, I also decry any system devised to oppose such innovations which will forever banish the hope of securing unity in Christ Jesus. Those congregations representing the various divergent segments which call themselves "The Church of Christ" have adopted a philosophy of attempting to maintain doctrinal purity by separation, that is, by fractionizing and factionalizing the previously existing brotherhood. They have developed an unwritten creed of dogmatism. It is based on a theory of disciplinary action which may be designated ex familia, out of the family.

This method was contrived to meet the problems posed in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Its application has now effectively reduced a glorious movement started to unite "the Christians in all the sects" into the most divided religious movement on the American scene. I revere the memory of men like Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb, leaders in the North and South, but they overstepped their human limitations when they proposed to un­Christianize and depose from Gods family those who disagreed with them. Only the Father has a right to tell who should be regarded as brethren.

I want it known that I love God and I love every word in the sacred oracles. But I renounce the traditional twentieth century "Church of Christ" factionalism as a means for achieving Gods purpose in this age. I shall continue to oppose everything that I believe to be out of harmony with Gods plan but I shall not allow these things to interfere with my love or regard for any of my brothers who sincerely and conscientiously disagree with me about the implementation of that plan.

In short, I shall make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation. I shall not seek to establish brotherhood by definition of a human document, nor by conformity in matters of opinion. I shall be a brother to all who have been begotten by my Father. Brotherhood based upon fatherhood, fraternity based upon paternity, this shall be my standard because it is scriptural. I will free myself from all partisan traditions, schemes and ideas which men have adopted to offset unity of the Spirit. I intend to be a free man in Christ, bound only by His word. "You are bought with a price, do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:23).

The unity of the Spirit is one of community, not conformity; of diversity, not uniformity. It is rooted in mutual love, not dogmatism; in freedom, not in slavery. Our peace is a person, not a plan or a program!

(Mission Messenger: Vol. 24, No. 2; Feb. 1962)