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.