Bicentennial Notes on Restoration History . . .

THE MEANING OF THAT 1906 CENSUS

It is generally known among our people that the Churches of Christ were listed as a separate religious entity in this country for the first time in the census of 1906. Up until then the Restoration Movement was still undivided, insofar as the census officials were concerned. In previous censuses we were numbered with the people who were variously known as Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, and Churches of Christ.

We all know that divisions of this magnitude do not occur in anyone year, or even in a decade for that matter. It is something like a divorce granted by the court. The writ may be issued long after the marriage has failed. The 1906 census serves as a convenient outside date for the separate status of Churches of Christ. For a people who suppose themselves to be the only true church, restored to its pristine purity by Alexander Campbell, it is hardly in order to speak of any date for its beginning besides 33 A.D. — and no other place beside Jerusalem!

There’s a man in Dallas with an odd hobby, who is not a member of the Church of Christ. He collects cornerstones marked: Church of Christ, Founded 33 A.D.

This singular claim aside for the moment, the historian still has the task of dating the emergence of Churches of Christ in this modern age. We certainly did not exist in the days of Martin Luther. And a good case can be made for our not existing during the lifetime of Alexander Campbell. As a historian of the Movement, I would have to say that the distinctive group known as Churches of Christ began to emerge in the 1880’s and that they were a people all their own well before 1906.

Shortly after the Civil War, and just a month following Alexander Campbell’s death, Moses E. Lard wrote in his Quarterly to the effect that the Restoration Movement would never divide. Now that it had endured that awful turmoil, nothing could divide it, he was convinced. Our leaders were still talking that way in 1883. Hear this voice from the south: “We have never seen a circumstance in which we were willing to advise division in a church of Christ. Our friends have frequently, when evils have entered a church, blamed us for not advising division, withdrawal from a church, etc. They have chided us with cowardice in action — we plead this. We are too cowardly to advise a step in religion never advised by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, so far as we have learned, never saw a church of God so corrupted as to advise withdrawal from it.”

That is from David Lipscomb, editor of the Gospel Advocate (Vol. 24, p. 46), whose language is forthright, and it is consistent with the ideals laid down by the pioneers. By the 1880’s some gnawing differences existed within the Movement. These had to do with agencies and societies, instrumental music, reimmersion, the pastor system, cooperation with “the denominations,” liberal theology, and even open membership which was then but on the horizon. Lipscomb’s views were conservative, though moderate. He opposed instrumental music, which was then in no more than a dozen churches even though hotly debated, but he refused to make it a test of fellowship. He did not draw the line on “pro organ” preachers nor try to keep them out of southern pulpits, as did some of his colleagues on the Advocate staff. A good case can be made for the claim that it was Lipscomb’s influence that kept the Movement from dividing for two full decades, despite efforts on the part of others to divide it.

But there is some evidence that he saw division as inevitable as early as 1883, for he wrote: “If a separation will, and ought to come, it may be asked, ‘How will it be brought about?’ All the true disciple has to do is to firmly stand for the truth, and be true to it. God, in his providence will then bring it.”

That same year (1883) up in Cincinnati John F. Rowe, editor of the Christian Leader, called for the drawing of lines. “The day for dilly-dallying has passed,” he insisted, “We want to know the men upon whom we can depend. Let our men of faith and integrity be in frequent consultation.” He wanted some concerted action to be taken against the innovators. Isaac Errett called this a conspiracy to “capture as many of our churches and preachers as possible with a view to a separation.” But Rowe was not able to pull it off, mainly because he got no encouragement from David Lipscomb in the south.

A few years later Daniel Sommer proved to be more successful. Once he assumed the mantle of conservative leadership in the north from Benjamin Franklin and began to edit his own Octographic Review in Indianapolis, he embarked upon a plan to bring the innovators to account. He arranged for a mass meeting of the faithful in Sand, Creek, Illinois (Aug. 18, 1889), which attracted 6,000. He worked up a document called “An Address and Declaration,” which was in obvious reference to Thomas Campbell’s famous “Declaration and Address.” Once Sommer had addressed the assembly on the evils of the innovations, Peter P. Warren read the document, which was a threat to withdraw from all those who did not change their ways: “And now we are impelled from a sense of duty to say that all such as are guilty of teaching or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, after having had sufficient time for meditation and reflection, if they do not turn away from their abominations that we cannot and will not regard them as brethren.” The innovations named were choirs, instrumental music, man-made societies for missionary work, and the one-man imported preacher-pastor.

We cannot and will not regard them as brethren. This was so different from the spirit of Campbell and Stone, who had insisted that varying opinions may be allowed on the non-essentials. So this document was a reverse of the “Declaration and Address” in both name and practice. It drew strong fire from the Christian Standard, which called it “Sommerism and Sand Creekism” and said it was against all that Campbell, Stone, Scott, Errett and Franklin stood for. It called upon Lipscomb to let it be known that he has no sympathy with it. But this time Lipscomb raised no voice of protest. Now he was sympathetic, though it was hardly the thing he himself would have done. The die was now cast. It would be only with Lipscomb’s blessings in the south that the conservative Churches of Christ could become separate. He still talked about patience and forbearance, but he at last consented to what he said he would never do. So, August 18, 1889 makes a suitable date for the beginning of the Churches of Christ as a separate religious group. But that will be too much for some of our brethren, especially when we allow Sand Creek, Illinois to displace Jerusalem as the birthplace. One can always argue that the Churches of Christ are the true Restoration Movement, that the liberals departed from the faith, and that through Campbell’s efforts we are the true, restored church of the New Testament, which takes us back once more to 33 A.D. and Jerusalem.

An interesting thing about this story is that it doesn’t all take place in the south as it is suppose to, if the Civil War is the real culprit, as some of our historians have insisted. It was a sectional thing, they say, born of the animosities and socio-economic conditions emanating from the War. We had to divide over something, they insist, the north-south prejudices being what they were. This is social determinism that accounts for our divisions on the basis of cultural forces rather than on the ground of our sinfulness. If Jesus prayed for our oneness and if the apostles enjoined it upon us, then we must conclude that it is possible to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” and let cultural forces be hanged. If it can all be blamed on the Civil War, then there is nothing to worry about, for it couldn’t be helped. I am not a social determinist, and I do not agree with this thesis.

This story of our first division was trans-sectional and not southern. That most Churches of Christ turn out to be in the south does not mean that this fracture was a split between those who were on opposite sides during the war. Those who so interpret our history are neglecting some important facts.

1. The Civil War ended in 1865. Twenty years later both David Lipscomb in the south and Isaac Errett in the north, the leading editors of the Movement, were pleading for a united people and warning against division. The War was the cause of the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists dividing, and at this time they had long been divided. If the War divided us, why was it so long doing its dirty work?

2. The legalism or exclusivism that finally separated the Churches of Christ at least by 1906 was not necessarily southern in origin. As we have seen, the efforts of John Rowe and Daniel Sommer to separate “the faithful” from the rest was in Ohio and Illinois, not in the south.

3. The strongest voice in the south into the 1890’s, that of David Lipscomb, was the voice of moderation. He was by no means a radical exclusivist. He even urged unity with the Baptists! For a long time he insisted that the Movement must not divide, and he was on record for declaring he could conceive of no circumstance that he would divide it, certainly not over societies and the instrument. Much of the pressure that finally caused him to surrender this position came from the north.

4. The schisms that finally led to an open split pitted northerner against northerner and southerner against southerner rather than being sectional. It was Isaac Errett of the Standard opposing the radicalism of John Rowe of the Leader, both northerners. It was Lipscomb opposing the radicalism of Austin McGary of the Firm Foundation, both southerners.

5. To say that the liberals were in the north and the conservatives in the south will not do either. J. W. McGarvey, hardly a southerner, was the most learned conservative of them all, leading in the fight against liberal religion. He was non-instrument but pro-society, and he never separated from the Disciples (though he did leave a congregation when the organ was introduced), believing that fellowship allows for differences. Franklin, Rowe, and Sommer were radically conservative, and all were northerners. Too, not all the conservatives “left” with the Churches of Christ. Like McGarvey, many remained for decades to come. The second major division was that of the conservative Christian Churches (instrumentalists) leaving the Disciples, which was almost compeltely northern, and began in the 1920’s. Still today the conservative Christian Church is at its strongest in the midwest, not in the south. The liberal Disciples, on the other hand, are relatively strong in the south.

6. Even among Churches of Christ (non-instrument) some of the most radical exclusivists, such as the Sommer churches, were in the north, people who had virtually no contact at all with the south.

So this division in 1906 was hardly a north-south thing. Certainly the War and the economy applied pressures, but the real culprit was “the true church” fallacy. Our people could have followed the attitude of J. W. McGarvey, which would have resulted in our having some pro-organ and pro-society churches and some opposed, but still in fellowship and still recognizing each other as brothers. It was when some leliders rose up and said, “You have to believe and practice as we do or we will not recognize you as brothers,” that we began to divide. This is exclusivism, which is still the spirit of most Churches of Christ, north or south. Exclusivism by its very nature is divisive. It has subdivided the Churches of Christ into still other sects, perhaps as many as 12 or 15 who claim to be the only true New Testament church. This is the tragedy of our history. It did not have to be, Civil War or no Civil War.

This can be rather easily corrected if we will cease being exclusivists. No one need surrender any truth he holds or make any compromise with what is clearly set forth in scripture. It is a matter of ceasing to make our opinions and private interpretations tests of fellowship. We can believe we are right without believing everyone else to be wrong.

Up in Washington in 1906, S.N.D. North, the Census Bureau director, was confused with the data he had on Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ. So he wrote to David Lipscomb, wanting to know if Churches of Christ should be considered as separate. Uncle Dave was ready for him, for already he had prepared a list of “faithful” churches and preachers. After presenting a brief summary of the Movement’s history, he told Mr. North that “There is a distinct people taking the Word of God as their only and sufficient rule of faith, calling their churches ‘churches of Christ,’ or ‘churches of God,’ distinct and separate in name, work and rule of faith from all other bodies or people.”

The Disciples recognized the cleavage in their 1911 Yearbook. The deed was done. Our people had learned something new, to settle their differences by dividing. We apparently learned it well. —the Editor