The Fork in the Road: “The Way of UNITY between “Christian Churches” and Churches of Christ,” Supplemental Reading

As we sorted through H. Leo Boles speech on why the a cappella Churches of Christ cannot be in fellowship with their instrumental sister congregations, we found that he refers to efforts by the instrumental churches to impose instruments on the a cappella churches. There evidently were some hotly contested cases regarding this issue — and so I thought I’d research the history via the reported court decisions.

The main case is a decision in Sand Creek Church of Christ v. Sand Creek Christian Church. The link will take you a .pdf of a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court rendered in 1906. That’s right: 1906. You have to figure this decision had an impact on Lipscomb’s declaration that the division was complete.

It used to be the law that when a church split over doctrine, the faction that held to the original doctrines of the church could keep the property. As a result, when a Church of Christ split, the parties would squabble over which group was true to the founding principles of the congregation, and sometimes a small minority of the church would gain control of the property by means of a lawsuit.

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court held this to be an unconstitutional intervention in church affairs by the government, leaving the issue up to church polity, that is, to bylaws, elders, majority vote, etc.: “The standard of departure-from-doctrine, though it calls for resolution of ecclesiastical questions, is a creation of state, not church, law.” This ended much of the litigation.

In other words, the idea that the true church is the one that doesn’t stray from its founding principles is a creation of the US court system, not churches. Indeed, the Supreme Court found that no church has ever made that an internal rule. After all, the Protestant churches adhere to semper reformanda, that is, “always reforming.” Countless Baptist and other churches rejected their old denominational ties and joined the Restoration Movement during the 19th Century. Those congregations could hardly claim that the founding principles of those churches are necessarily truer to scripture!

Nonetheless, my reading of Church of Christ history is that, because the Church of Christ faction won the Sand Creek decision, many took the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision as a vindication, making the Christian Church faction into usurpers. But the narrow legal question is which faction was more true to the original principles of that congregation, not to the Bible and not the Restoration Movement. Indeed, the court specifically refused to rule on who was right.

The story of the case

The Sand Creek congregation is famous as the site of Daniel Sommer’s 1889 “Address and Declaration,” the document which first divided the Restoration Movement. He declared as apostate all who used the instrument, or supported a missionary society, or hired a located preacher, or raised money by any means other than a free will offering. (Bake sales will send you straight to hell, you know.) The Sand Creek church was thus quite a conservative congregation.

The court explains,

In the fall of 1903 a question arose in the congregation as to the propriety of using the brick church as a place in which to hold a singing school. The officers of the church-that is, the trustees, elders and deacons, who had acted as such and had controlled the affairs of the church organization for many years–opposed the holding of the singing school in the church building at that time and refused to permit its use for that purpose. After some considerable discussion upon that question, in the spring of 1904 the dissensions which it appears had existed in the congregation broke out and the congregation divided.

Yep, they split over whether a singing school could be held in the building!

The two groups then discovered that an earlier effort to incorporate the church had been done incorrectly, and thus the two groups raced to incorporate the church under their preferred charter.

The majority group was a cappella. The minority group was instrumental, and they were expelled from the building. Both groups claimed to be most true to the founding principles of the church.

Ultimately, the court held that the a cappella group had not varied from the congregation’s traditional views and, besides, they incorporated the church first.

Now, who did violence to whom? Who is the victim? Well, if we must view the fight in such honor-bound terms, the a cappella members expelled the instrumental members. But the instrumental members were in the minority and appear to have attempted a takeover by legal maneuvers.

But it doesn’t appear that either side had any interest in separate services. That seems to have been an unimaginable prospect to both sides. You see, neither side submitted to the other. Both sides acted as capitalists, fighting over property. Neither side acted as Christians.

(1Co 6:1-8 ESV) When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?  2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?  3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!  4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?  5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,  6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?  7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?  8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud–even your own brothers!

I don’t see how either side has much to be proud of. And this case hardly makes out the a cappella Churches as victims. Indeed, it makes both sides out as preferring their property to their principles, and power to submission.

Peace v. First Christian Church

Much less frequently cited, but historically interesting is this 1898 case out of Texas. In this case, the church divided over whether baptism must be for the stated purpose of remission of sins. The church split, and both factions sued for the building.

The court found that the original church taught —

They hold to immersion exclusively, as Christian baptism, and they teach that baptism, when preceded by faith in Christ, repentance from sin, and a public confession of such faith, is for the remission of sins; but they have never required uniformity in opinion as to this purpose or design of baptism, and it has been their custom and usage from the beginning, and held by them to be in accord with their fundamental principles above stated to regard and treat as Christians persons from other Christian denominations, who have been immersed, upon a profession of their faith in Christ, and to receive such persons into membership and full fellowship in their churches, whether or not they believe that baptism is for the remission of sins.

Fourth. It is also a part of their fundamental principles that missionary societies, conventions, and similar voluntary organizations for Christian work, as well as the use of instrumental music in connection with their worship in the church, are regarded as expedients, concerning which no rule pro or con can be made, but regarding which each local church or congregation and each individual is allowed liberty in opinion and practice; and they have generally, since the beginning of the denomination, had their general societies and conventions for missionary work, and each of such voluntary organizations being allowed and having free access to and use of their respective church houses or places of worship in which to hold their meetings and transact their business.

In other words, the church was founded true to the teachings of Alexander Campbell. However, because of the influence of Austin McGary and the Firm Foundation, a new faction arose.

Within the past ten or twelve years, the Christian Church, or Disciples of Christ, in Texas, have become divided into two factions. Those adhering to the principles, usages, and customs above set forth are now designated as the ‘Progressive Faction,’ and the other as the ‘Firm Foundation Faction.’ These have become distinct and opposing factions and church organizations, the difference being mainly that the Firm Foundation Faction hold that none have been scripturally baptized, or are Christians, who did not at the time of receiving baptism understand and believe that they were being baptized for the purpose of securing a remission of their sins,–‘for the remission of sins,’ as contradistinguished from ‘because of the remission of sins,’ as held by some other Christian denominations; and they refuse to receive such persons in their churches without rebaptism, and insist upon excluding such persons from the Christian Church; and the Progressive Faction hold that all persons who have been baptized upon a profession of faith in Christ are Christians, and are entitled to membership in their churches, regardless of their views as to whether or not baptism is for the remission of sins, and without rebaptism, and they oppose the exclusion of any from the churches because of their views of the purpose or design of baptism. The Firm Foundation Faction oppose and do not allow the use of musical instruments in connection with their worship in the churches controlled by them, and oppose the formation of missionary societies, conventions, and like organizations for Christian work, holding that such practices are sinful and in violation of the faith of the church, and forbid the use of their church houses and property by such organizations for meeting purposes; while the Progressive Faction hold that the use of musical instruments in the churches, and the formation of such societies and conventions, are mere matters of expediency, concerning which individuals may exercise their preferences, without affecting their standing in the church; and the Progressive Faction generally use musical instruments in their churches, in connection with their worship, and organize missionary, Christian Endeavor, and Ladies’ Aid societies in their local churches, and participate in the general conventions and general missionary societies of the Christian Church at large.

The court found that the majority of the church — as well as its elders — were in the Firm Foundation Faction. Only a handful remained in the Progressive Faction.

In the opinion of this court, the differences in the fundamental principles, doctrines, and practices between these two factions of the McGregor church are radical and irreconcilable; and the doctrines and practices of the defendants, who are in possession of the church property, are at a wide variance from, and largely subversive of, the fundamental doctrines and practices of such church at the time the property in dispute was dedicated to its support; and the trust imposed by such dedication has been, and is being, diverted from the purposes intended by the founders of such trust; and the plaintiff corporation is composed of those members of said church who adhere to the specific form of religious doctrine, in principle and practice, to the support entitled to recover the possession thereof; and it is so ordered.

In other words, when the Firm Foundation Faction gained control of the eldership, the losers of the fight were able to gain the building by insisting they stood for the founding principles of the church — which was true. And so the Firm Foundation Faction lost the building.

Again, both sides showed themselves small minded, by being unwilling to find a way to work together and by instead going to court. Victory and power was more important than peace. The “Progressive” Faction was in error for going against the elders (even though I think the elders were doctrinally wrong). And the Firm Foundation Faction was wrong for running the others out. Both sides were wrong for going to court.

And so, you see why the U.S. Supreme Court wisely changed the law, rejecting the “change in doctrine” standard. That old rule resulted in some bad decisions, overruling the decisions of duly ordained elders. It also tempted weak people to go to court to fight out internal church disputes. Those were some sad days.

But the wickedness was on both sides. I find no record of a cappella members being systematically abused by instrumental people. I’m sure it happened, but in this Texas case, the conservatives took over a progressive congregation, changed its doctrine, and then ran out the progressives! It happened both ways.

You see the sad reality is that both sides were petty, worldly minded, and unwilling to work together. Both sides seem to have read their church periodicals more carefully than they read their Bibles.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Fork in the Road, Instrumental Music, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Fork in the Road: “The Way of UNITY between “Christian Churches” and Churches of Christ,” Supplemental Reading

  1. Jerry says:

    Back in the mid-70s, when I was a graduate student at the Cincinnati Christian Seminary (a conservative Christian Church school), one of my fellow students asked me, “Jerry, do you really believe I will go to hell because I worship with a piano?”

    I responded, “I really do not know – but I am pretty sure there will be people in hell because of their attitude about the piano.”

    The two cases you cite above illustrate why I felt that way then, and still do.

  2. Ray Downen says:

    I clicked on the link which was supposed to go to the appellate court’s decision in the Sand Creek dispute over a church building. It took me to the same site later linked to as referring to a Texas congregation’s dispute. http://www.piney.com/RmSommersTrial.html links to the Sand Creek appellate court’s decision, although that may not be the link intended by Jay.

    We Christians are not always lovers of peace as we are called to be. We are urged to not quarrel, to not sue others, particularly to not sue our brothers in Christ, and to live at peace with all. Factions are not suitable for servants of the Lord Jesus. But some do love property, and seek to protect their “rights” in property in which they have invested. They feel their investment gives them ownership. But what if it does? If it becomes impossible to remain in close fellowship with brothers of different persuasion, then shouldn’t we abandon our “property” investments and simply move on to do the Lord’s work in another location? Is there perhaps a good reason why Christians are not encouraged by apostles to build buildings and invest in property as a congregation?

    If our attitude is to love, we still have preferences and may not choose to work in tandem with those with differing preferences and styles. If our numbers are few, we may not want to walk away from fellowship over things which are not matters of life and death. But if I want to play a trumpet during congregational singing, and others do not want to hear a trumpet at that time, must I continue playing the trumpet? How about if it’s a guitar, or a piano? Likely a separation is the way of peace.

    But must we condemn those whose opinion does not coincide with our own? Of course not. Yet if they insist our way is wrong, we cannot remain together at the times when some want particular instruments to be used and others want them to not be used. So we do well to love one another and not seek to condemn those whose opinions differ from our own. If apostles teach a thing, we all should agree on that thing. If there is no revelation about anything pertaining to our fellowship, we have no right to create our own laws and then refuse fellowship to dissenters from our law.

    Some have created an anti-instrument law. No apostle gave such a law. Jesus did not give such a law. It’s entirely done by human wisdom. Some accept the law and refuse fellowship to those who do not accept it. Unity demands that we NOT make laws and demand that our brothers and sisters agree with our law. Jesus wants us to be one body serving the one Lord. Those who create disunity are not loyal followers of Jesus.

  3. aBasnar says:

    Those who create disunity are not loyal followers of Jesus.

    …which may as well be those who start a discussion on IM in an a-cappella tradition (which may very likely be an Aposzolic tradition). As for antiquity: IM was an innovation that almost always led to disunity. This does not excuse the harsh reactions, however. But be honest: Who started the fight?

    Alexander

  4. Charles McLean says:

    If I am fat, what is to blame? The pie? The cake? The biscuits? That fried chicken? The donuts?

    If we are divided, what is to blame? The piano? The kitchen? The preacher’s paycheck? The orphanage? The communion cups?

    As the answer to the first question is pretty clearly that none of those “things” made me fat, I would like to suggest that in the second question, none of those things divided us.

    WE divided us. The tools used are immaterial.

  5. Royce Ogle says:

    His Excellence Prince Charles is precisely correct! Well said as usual.

    People who never are willing to submit to others, are quick tempered, who are not long suffering, who are not forgiving, etc., etc. …, If they are Christians at all they are very, very immature ones at best.

    How again is Christ honored and lifted up when one group who bear his name dismisses another group who also bears his name over a matter not addressed in the Bible? I must have missed that lesson.

  6. Johnny Robertson says:

    May i ask how one can say that God’s desire as to the kind of praise he wants is not addressed in the NT? It is clearly addressed as is the case for what God desires for the mode of baptism. God asked for immersion and that is his addressing the issue, and so he ask for singing and that is his addressing the issue

  7. Charles McLean says:

    The same fellow who encouraged singing said the same about kissing each other and I’m not seeing a lot of that. Does that make my unpuckered brothers my “errant brethren”? Or are they rebels against the counsel of God, insisting on a pattern of self-will in their faith and practice? Or, could it be that they are simply FREE?

    Johnny, I think you’ll find that while the encouragement to sing to the glory of God is present in both OT and NT, the limitations currently attached to it by some CoC folks are completely absent from the scriptures.

  8. Todd Collier says:

    Hey Charles I own the copyrights to the Holy Kiss argument!

    Ok, so I’ll steal one from someone else:
    Johnny Willie Nelson is a country western singer/songwriter. When I pull up one of his performaces on youtube I am not at all shocked to find him with a guitar hanging around his neck. His “singing” does not naturally preclude his playing at the same time. The same is true of Billy Joel (piano) or Paul McCartney (cool violin bass guitar) if CW isn’t your thing.

    If you are not offended by this understanding of what singing means in everyday language where in the Scriptures would you find a rule that says you can’t use “sing” the same way when reading the text?

  9. Doug says:

    Todd, someone sent me a early Willie Nelson video with him singing on the Grand Ole Opera. He was dressed in a dark suit and looked… normal. Look for it on youtube and it’ll provide a great demonstration of the high cost of low living.

Comments are closed.