The Non-Instrument Churches
(Editor's note: The following article is an address delivered at the Conference on Evangelism, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 13, 1958. It is an interesting statement from a conservative "Christian Church" preacher, and indicative of the thinking being done by able students among that group.)
In 1906 when J. W. Shepherd compiled and submitted to the Federal census bureau the statistics concerning a sizable group of brethren in the Restoration movement who objected principally to the use of instrumental music and opposed missionary societies, he only made a matter of public record a division which had existed in fact too many years.
It is impossible to say exactly when these churches of Christ became a distinct group. In fact there are some who argue that there is no division. They contend that we all preach the same plan of salvation and practice the same sacraments, and no representative convention was ever called by them to declare non-fellowship with the "so-called Christian Churches," therefore there is no separation. But if in a movement some brethren have their own papers, publishing houses, schools, churches, and nomenclature, and in general have no association with other churches in the movement, then there is at least strong suspicion of division.
It is interesting, however, that the editor of CHRISTIAN STANDARD, J. A. Lord, was either unaware of the separation or refused to recognize it, when in 1906, writing in opposition to the Christian Evangelist's support of the newly formed Federal Council of Churches of Christ, he remarked that J. H. Garrison (editor of the Evangelist) was trying "to split the brotherhood in two." Of course, no movement, and especially none advocating the union of all Christians on the simple New Testament truth, is eager to declare that a split has occurred and a new communion formed.
Beginnings Of Division
W. E. Garrison goes back to 1830 for the beginning of the estrangement. This would seem to say that the union movement had at its birth the germs of division. The controversy over the missionary society arose first, but the missionary society did not present the incitement to division that the instrument did. The instrument was something tangible; here was something that each congregation had to decide for itself without any necessary relation to any other congregation. L. L. Pinkerton, minister of the Midway, Kentucky, church was the first to introduce the instrument in the church. Because of the "deplorable singing in the congregation," some friends of Pinkerton suggested that they use the help of an instrument, as some brethren were doing in their homes, and in 1860 a melodeon was installed. (An elder, Adam Hibler, is alleged to have stolen the instrument in the dead of night, and with the help of a Negro servant, Reuben, carried it away on a sleigh. It has been recovered and is the treasured relic of the Kentucky Female Orphan Home in Midway.)
Remarkable Growth
According to the statement of the Government Report of 1906, the separated communion "opposed missionary societies, instrumental music, the introduction of the modern pastor," and "unscriptural means of raising money." While some of the churches holding the position described by the Government Report were not included, the figures given for census purposes were 2,649 churches and 159,658 individuals. This segment of the brotherhood achieved remarkable growth. Within twenty years its membership had tripled. The census figures for 1926 indicate 6,226 churches and 433,714 members, twelve schools and colleges, six orphan homes, one old people's home, one working girl's home, and one hospital. Contrast the percentage of increase with that of the Disciples of Christ in approximately the same period: 1910-1,363,206; and 1926: 1,450 681 A Life magazine article in June 1958 places the membership of the non-instrument churches at more than one and three-fourths million. It is estimated that eighty-five per cent of their churches are in rural districts, and their stronghold is in the South, principally in Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Kentucky.
This rather remarkable progress has not been achieved without serious struggle. This is not surprising. The Restoration movement was born in a climate of schism, and has never enjoyed a period of complete unity. W. T. Moore, familiar restoration figure of the last century, said on one occasion, "Brethren, I have lived ninety years, and I can't remember a time when the Disciples were not passing through a crisis."
Inward Struggles
The newly separated anti-organ brethren were not exempt. They acted on the principle that the silence of the New Testament on any proposed new method was equivalent to a denial of its legitimacy, or as Alexander Campbell put it when opposing early co-operative agencies, "It is not enough to say that it is not prohibited. It is not commanded." This idea led the newly separated group into numerous schisms. Thomas Campbell's famous motto, "Where the Bible speaks ...," had become a stone of stumbling. The controversies that have faced these brethren did not have their origin after the 1906 separation; they rather became their peculiar problems and were intensified among them after this date.
Since the Bible was silent about Sunday schools, some would not allow them. There was "no authority for them in the Word of God," and "those pleading them essential to growth of the church must admit that God overlooked a very important item in the plan of salvation, and man, being wiser than God, has supplied the deficiency with the Sunday school."
Very naturally Sunday-school literature came under censure. It was condemned as sinful and as a written creed. West admits that this controversy was due in part to "jealousy over commercial interests between publishing concerns." The American Christian Review, edited by J. F. Rowe, complained of the Christian Standard that one of the departures it fostered was the use of lesson leaflets.
An interesting extreme was fostered by one Alfred Elmore. It concerned the order of the worship service. He said, "In seventy-five years Acts 2:42 had been quoted ten thousand times as describing the order of worship of the first church and yet in 9,9991/2 times those who'd quoted it had failed to adopt this order." He then proceeded to stipulate the length of time that each element of worship in a service should occupy who and how many were to conduct each part and to give other specific directions.
There were and are other people in the movement who have scruples against using more than one cup in the Communion service. If Jesus had meant for individual cups to be used they say He would have provided the example.
Colleges came under fire very early in the Restoration and this fire continued and was fanned among the non-instrument brethren. Daniel Sommer led the attack against colleges. He contended that they were "the beginning point of all digression" and "like missionary societies they were unscriptural agencies through which the church was to do its work."
Now while these problems still exist in some degree among the non-instrument churches the controversy surrounding them has generally subsided. Other controversies by no means new have replaced them. We shall mention these at another place in our discussion.
Following the example of "the Sage of Bethany" these brethren have employed the debate as one of the chief means for setting forth the various issues that have confronted them. Debates have been conducted on the public platform and through the numerous papers they publish. Most of the important public debates have been preserved in book form.
Positive Aspects
But any movement has its positive as well as its negative aspects. There are many areas in which the non-instrument brethren have made vital contributions to the Restoration. Contemporary writers among them deplore the extremes represented by some of the issues previously mentioned. The fact that the non-instrument churches are now enjoying their greatest growth since their early days is due in part to the subsidence of controversy among them, the disgust of many against extreme legalistic attitudes, and the confinement of the extremes to isolated minorities. Since the obsession for indiscriminate union on the part of the International Convention-United Society coterie has led many Disciples to abandon the restoration idea, a vantage point well in the future may reveal the anti-instrument churches to have been the preservers and purveyors of the emphasis upon the restoration theme in our movement.
They have followed the finest Campbell tradition in establishing liberal arts colleges with the Bible at the heart of their curricula. The statement of purpose given in the Abilene Christian College Bulletin is representative: "The purpose of Abilene Christian College is to educate its students for abundant living as Christian citizens serving in a free society."
Their schools are not preacher-training schools as such. Students intending to be preachers may major in Bible and may also do graduate work. In the departments of Bible and religious education, which all their colleges have, they offer as many Biblical courses as any of our Bible colleges. In fact eight pages of the Abilene Christian College Bulletin are devoted to the listing of Biblical and Biblically-related subjects.
Since they have no specifically designated preacher-training schools, the distinction between clergy and laity is not very significant among them. All of their college students, regardless of their major fields, are required to take at least fifteen hours in Bible. The colleges require eighteen hours in Bible for a minor in that field, and at least thirty hours for a major. Church members trained in their colleges are therefore reasonably well equipped with Biblical knowledge and methods to do evangelistic work.
This, too, in part, explains their phenomenal growth in the past several years. They use their laymen. Someone among us has said, "We send our young men away from our congregations to Bible college and they return to compete for our pulpits; their young people return from college and help in the local work or they start new congregations." (Another reason why the number of their congregations is multiplying so rapidly is the rather widespread belief among them that new congregations in new areas are more important than a large congregation in a single area.)
According to The Christian Chronicle, this fall saw between ten and fifteen thousand students enroll in twenty-six schools and colleges. Last year, 11,366 enrolled in twenty-five of their institutions. All of their colleges are accredited by state agencies. Several of them have regional accreditation. The largest college at present is Abilene Christian College with 2,400 students. The oldest living school is Freed-Hardeman, in Henderson, Tennessee, established in 1885.
They opened two new colleges this fall. Their new $1,500,000 Central Christian College in Oklahoma City, called by the Press "America's most modern college campus," has received national recognition for its unique design. The other is the Magic Valley Christian College at Albion, Idaho. This was a state college that became defunct. This is the first time in the history of the United States that a state college has been closed and then reopened by a private organization. A forty-one acre campus valued at five million dollars was purchased for one hundred thousand dollars.
Besides their colleges these brethren have numerous Bible chairs operating in state and municipal universities. Moreover, an increasing number of their men are attending the larger eastern schools for graduate work. Doctors of philosophy are becoming more and more numerous among them.
The Literary Tradition
In the field of literature they have done more reviving of older Restoration works than writing and publishing their own works. B. C. Goodpasture and John Allen Hudson are familiar names in this area. The prodigious undertaking in the reproduction of the Millennial Harbinger is a most important contribution to our movement. The Campbell Debates, Lard's Quarterly, the Works of Barton W. Stone, The Gospel Restored, are just a few of the classics they have reproduced. Their own men have written commentaries on the New Testament and various polemic works. James Bales is a familiar name in the area of Christian Evidences. His Roots of Unbelief and The Faith and Fruits of Atheism are valuable volumes in anyone's library. Recently they have been producing works probing their own history. J. W. West is the most prolific historian among them. His two volume Search for the Ancient Order should certainly be read by all students of the Restoration movement. Homer Hailey's Attitudes and Consequences, and Norvel Young's History of Colleges Among the Churches of Christ are other important historical contributions.
In the finest Restoration tradition they have published many papers. Their two most popular papers are the Gospel Advocate and the Gospel Guardian. They have a compelling little magazine, less given to controversy than the papers, called The Twentieth Century Christian. They have published thousands of tracts, including some that are appealing and attractive.
Present Problems
At present the most troublesome problem among the anti-instrument group (and by no means a new issue) is "institutionalism." It involves the question as to whether local congregations can co-operate to do the work of the church.
The problem came to the fore as a result of several developments among their churches shortly after the Second World War. A nationwide radio and television program, "The Herald of Truth," was initiated by the Highland Church of Christ of Abilene, Texas. Simultaneously, church of Christ missionary work in Germany was expanded under the leadership of Otis Gatewood, supported by his home church, the Broadway Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas. In this same period, some of the brethren agitated for the institution of new orphan homes.
Obviously, these three activities were going to require funds; and no single congregation, however large, could successfully sustain such programs. All the interested congregations in their brotherhood were urged to send funds to a single congregation which would act as the agency for the television program, or the missionary work, or the orphan home. This method drew the fire of the more conservative members of the church. They objected that it was unscriptural for a single church to receive and disperse funds sent by other churches. To them the sponsoring congregation was assuming the role of a missionary society.
All non-instrument churches reject missionary societies on the ground that any such society becomes another organization outside the local congregation designed to do the "primary work of the church, which is evangelism." Extra congregational organizations that engage in educational and benevolent work are justified on the basis that they do the "secondary work of the church." Some church of Christ (non-instrument) ministers see the dark cloud of division rising over this issue. In general, the Gospel Guardian defends the more conservative view, while the Gospel Advocate supports the liberal view.
Another contemporary issue among the anti-instrument brethren is premillennialism. However, the argument over this topic is not as widespread nor generally as heated as the institutionalism controversy.
The "located minister" question which has troubled these churches is of special interest to us because the advocates of a "mutual ministry" (the positive side of the issue) have disseminated their views rather widely in some of our Bible colleges. The problem represents a revival of some of Alexander Campbell's earlier views. About 1900 Daniel Sommer gave more definite statement to the objection of the "located minister." More recent advocates of the position have been Carl Ketcherside with his paper, Mission Messenger, and Leroy Garrett with his publication, Bible Talk. They do not believe that the New Testament permits one man to be the minister of a local congregation. Instead of one man exhorting the congregation in the stated services, they contend that many should speak — that there be "mutual edification." Those who have opposed this doctrine say that Scripture does not furnish the details of evangelistic function and public worship insisted upon by the "mutual ministry" advocates. It is but another question of ways and means. There are signs that this controversy is subsiding.
Since most of the non-instrument churches are located in the south, the problem of segregation or integration is growing. As yet, the issue has not reached major proportions in their communion. This writer recently read a stinging letter written by a minister and graduate of Abilene Christian College to the trustees of that institution because of their refusal to admit Negro students.
Problem Of Fellowship
Finally, these adherents to the basic tenets of the Restoration face the perennial problem of fellowship. Ernest Beam addressed himself to this problem in The Christian Forum, but this difficulty in their ranks is far from solution.
"Expediency may well be the rock on which this reformation will go to ruin," wrote Moses Lard in 1865. We do not attempt here to indicate whether the ruination has occurred; we do feel that he put his finger upon one of the most troublesome problems in the Restoration movement.
Thomas Campbell was convinced that Christians are divided, not by things that make them Christians, but by their variant opinions and practices which neither make them nor prevent them from being Christian — about "things in which the kingdom of God does not consist." The leaders and members of the movement have done a service to the Christian world in showing the distinction between faith and opinion — between a "thus saith the Lord" and matters of expediency; but they have made themselves the objects of scorn in their inability to make consistent application of this insight.
We have heard the reaffirmation of such Restoration principles as "Speak where the Bible speaks," that only belief of the revealed truth about Christ and His commands should be binding, and that opinions should never be made tests of fellowship. It has always been easy to say these things; they always bring lusty "Amens!" from the brethren. But it is not as easy to reach agreement on what is faith and what is opinion. Obviously when everyone agrees that a position is in the realm of opinion, we can be quite forbearing. As long as there is an apostle Paul to say that eating meat sacrificed to idols is a matter of opinion, the weak and strong brothers may fare well as united brethren; but when there is no Paul to say whether the name of the church, the use of an instrument, the erection of colleges, the support of missionary societies, and any one of a dozen other things in the organizational or moral realms is opinion or not, a serious problem arises.
Prospects For Unity
The thing that now separates us from the main body of the non-instrument brethren is not, as some of us think, an attitude among them that prohibits any practice that is not mentioned in the Scripture. Among other factors, the main point of separation is the very point we have just made: that which we believe to be a matter of opinion, they believe to be a matter of faith.
What are the prospects for unity between the two groups? One might make the hasty generalization that if the issue which separated them initially is still present, then there is no hope for present-day co-operation. But the total situation is not the same. Many variables have replaced the original ones. The cultural situation has changed vastly. Writing in 1952, Homer Hailey said that "although many among both groups would like to see unity realized, it cannot but be recognized that the issue is clear and fixed; either those using the instruments must give them up, or those opposing them must compromise their position. There appears to be no alternative." Brother Hailey is saying that we must go to them or they must come to us. Maybe he is right.
But I wonder if there cannot be greater co-operation and fellowship between the groups while each respects the convictions of the other. We might as well face the fact that there are some differences that are never going to be reconciled in this life. And, with respect to the instrument, if after rational, sober, and detailed discussion of differences agreement of interpretation is not reached, is there no meaningful co-operation that can be practiced by us?
Let us frankly admit we have irreconcilable convictions, but let us not hurl epithets at each other. Debates on the instrument question include one between W. W. Otey and J. B. Briney; the Hunt-Inman Debate; the Wallace-Barber Debate; and others. I like the spirit of James Bales, who states:
When brethren differ one should regard such occasions as opportunities which stimulate one to rethink the positions which are involved. Thus differences should stimulate us to study. They should not stimulate us to sarcastic, harsh treatment of our brethren. A refusal to walk by love can be as fatal to the individual's hope of salvation as a refusal to walk by faith.
Of course there must be willingness on both sides to have this greater fellowship. We generally assume that they must take the initiative in creating fellowship since they disfellowshipped us. I think that our brethren generally would be willing to have greater co-operation with them if they would permit it. Perhaps we fear that fellowship might lead to proselyting. They may fear the same thing with the further aggravation that to co-operate with their conservative brethren who use instruments would be to endorse false teaching.
I do not think it is true that association with those who differ from you constitutes an endorsement of their teachings. I am thankful that there are signs among a growing number of Christian brethren in the non-instrument churches who feel that they can have fellowship with us without compromising their convictions, or feeling that by so doing they are endorsing what they believe to be error. In fact, I learned recently that a preaching convention is being planned for next spring at Winchester, Kentucky, with an equal number of brethren from both groups on the program. This is not to be a debate, but a convention for preaching and fellowship.
I leave you this question: Are we willing to explore all possible avenues for increasing co-operation with these whom we have so long termed our non-instrument brethren, or are both groups going to be content to remain divided unionists?