THE PARTY AND ITS RINGLEADERS
W. Carl Ketcherside

I sometimes wish I could omit this chapter but to do so would leave a void and create a distorted picture. I will deal with a division and my part in it, although division in the family of God has come to be so abhorrent to me I would like to forget my own unfortunate participation in it. In order to explain what happened I must give you a good deal of background. I do so with the realization it may not make sense to you. If you are patient enough to read it, however, you may be enabled to envision the role of personalities and their political maneuverings in the frightfully-divided Churches of Christ.

Although I did not realize it at the time I was baptized, this historical movement was already fractured into fragments because of the legalistic concept which had captured the minds of its adherents. Divisions do not happen. They are caused. Parties form around men who promote the separation and insist upon the segregation of their adherents. In the movement growing out of the ideal of restoration as enunciated by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, most of the divisions centered around men of prominence. In almost every instance they were editors of journals. They could use their papers as propaganda media and the United States mails as a distribution method. No party could long endure without an editor and a "loyal" paper.

Isaac Errett wielded influence through Christian Standard David Lipscomb edited Gospel Advocate. Austin McGary edited Firm Foundation. Daniel Sommer edited American Christian Review. The name of this paper was changed at various times to Octographic Review, Apostolic Review, and back again to American Christian Review. It was into the segment of "the disciple brotherhood" represented by the Apostolic Review I was introduced when baptized. At the time I did not know there were others. I supposed, in my childhood idealism, that all Christians were together, united in a common bond of faith, and that wherever you saw a meetinghouse with "Church of Christ" over the door you would find a welcome and a hand of fellowship to cheer you.

Daniel Sommer was a unique personality. Born of German immigrant parents, on January 1 I , 1850, he lived for ninety years, and formed a human bridge between the early restoration pioneers and my own time. He was contemporary with Alexander Campbell for sixteen years, and entered Bethany College four years after the death of its founder. A rather slow, but methodical student, he resolved to master the content of divine revelation and to proclaim it "without fear or favor." He viewed the spirit of departure from the original design of the scriptures as a sad and doleful commentary on the influence of pride and ambition among the disciples of Christ and began to raise his voice against the innovations he felt would make impossible the "return to the primitive order of things."

By the time he was forty years of age he was wielding a trenchant pen and a vigorous voice against the employment of "unlawful methods resorted to in order to raise money for religious purposes." He decried such things as bake sales, rummage sales, plays, performances and festivals. He attacked select choirs, instrumental music, missionary societies, and the "One man imported preacher-pastor to take the oversight of the church." It was his opposition to the developing clergy system which crystallized his objection to what he referred to as "so-called Christian colleges." Since David Lipscomb College and Abilene Christian College were both liberal arts schools, teaching nine-tenths secular subjects and one-tenth Bible, he deplored the designation Christian and coined the term "religio-secular institutions" to describe them.

I have in my possession a yellowed sheet listing exactly a hundred errors of  the "new digressives" as he labeled defenders of the colleges to distinguish them from the "old digressives" who endorsed instrumental music and missionary societies. But I think his main objection lay in the charge that the colleges were "preacher factories," taking "beardless youths" whose chief claim to fame was "a gift of gab" and who, after receiving a certain amount of polish and a degree, could hire themselves out by the year to minister to churches for a set fee. He believed such a system would make the churches dependent upon hirelings, and instead of developing a well-trained militia, would so weaken the saints they would have to secure mercenaries to defend them against assaults of the enemy.

So formidable was his attack that before 1890 it was decided to "call the hand" of "the digressives" and fling down the gauntlet. The place chosen was the Sand Creek meeting-house, a rural setting but a few miles from Windsor, Illinois. Here each year huge audiences gathered for a home-coming. A special train ran from Chicago, picking up people en route. Several thousand gathered for the famous weekend. On August 17, 1889 Daniel Sommer stood up to read a document he had written. He called it "An Address and Declaration" which was a take-off on "The Declaration and Address" of Thomas Campbell penned exactly eighty years before.

It was a protest against "objectionable and unauthorized things taught and practiced in many congregations. It listed four specific "corrupt practices." Instrumental music was not one of them. The thesis closed with these words: "All such that are guilty of teaching, or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, and after being admonished, and having had sufficient time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we cannot and will not regard them as brethren."

From now on the die was cast. Although the missionary society had been organized fifty years before, and instrumental music introduced forty_, years before, for the first time they became an open and formal test of fellowship. Representatives from five congregations affixed their signatures, not realizing that in so doing they were formulating a creed by which brother‑

hood was to be reckoned. A rash of court suits broke out to secure the property and in many of these Brother Sommer was called to act as a witness and testify against what he called "modern schoolmen."

Hardly had some degree of calm been restored by mutual exclusiveness deplored the use of the instrument were plunged into another bitter contest. This time the point of contention was "the religio-secular college." The Western Bible and Literary College had been planted at Odessa, Missouri and since there was strong opposition to it by many congregations in the area two debates were arranged between B. F. Rhodes and Daniel Sommer. These were held at Odessa and Hale, Missouri. As a result, J. N. Armstrong, who was president of the school, challenged Brother Sommer to a written examination of the issue.

Twenty essays were presented by each writer in a debate which began on March 15, 1907 and carried over into the year I was born. The written discussion was marked with bitterness and interspersed with accusations and counter-accusations. On page 299, Brother Sommer wrote: "About six years ago I began, with much reluctance, to oppose a certain class of colleges, for they had been projected by men whom I supposed to be my brethren. But I have tested six of them, and have proved them to be reckless of truth, on the college question, and slanderers of me personally. As a result I cannot regard them as brethren, and do not so designate them except through force of habit in form of expression."

In closing his part of the discussion, Brother Armstrong said: "He is trying to divide a people who are as nearly one in doctrine and practice as it is possible for true, loyal hearts to be; a people who are one on every question in religion save in their misunderstandings of the teachings of Christ . . . Could he do it, brother Sommer would lead the Octographic Review readers, a small company compared to the great body of disciples that advocate the schools, to reject as Christians this body of disciples, not-withstanding it stands with the Octographic Review family on nearly every other question discussed in the Church of God. Following such a principle every preacher in the Church would build up his individual sect."

At the time I was convinced that "the Octographic Review family" was the body of Christ to the exclusion of all others. There were real problems. Any party dominated by a strong personality, regardless of the sincerity of that person, treads a narrow line and walks on thin ice. The publishers of the Apostolic Review could wield a powerful influence on men and congregations and did so. Division is a natural result of such an arrangement. In Long Beach, California men who were powerful preachers came under suspicion — A. M. Morris, W. P. Reedy, Ralph C. Yadon, Stephen and Silas Settle. Charges were preferred and a disgraceful scene enacted in the Long Beach meetinghouse where rival factions held meetings simultaneously and tried to "sing each other down."

The "brethren out west" as they came to be known, started their own paper, a rival journal to "the Review," and those who supported the latter regarded the other as traitors. They were referred to as "the Long Beach element" or "the Morris faction." The charge against them was that they had "gone soft on the pastor system" and were hiring preachers at a stipulated salary to take over the pulpits. Men who had been regarded as "faithful" for years were suddenly branded and no longer called for meetings.

To complicate matters further, trouble began to surface in the Sommer family, not a new thing. Because one could not get a "clergy certificate" for reduced fares on the railroads if he derived part of his income from the sale of books or from editing a paper, Daniel Sommer placed the editorship of the paper in the hands of his wife. Her name appeared on the masthead for years — Mrs. K. W. Sommer, Editor. She did not take her position lightly and when her husband became involved in a church trouble in the west she cut him out of the paper and refused to print his articles. "There was no small stir," as the inspired writer would phrase it.

Even before that occurred, D. Austen, a son who resented having been left off of the family editorial staff, started his own paper which he designated the Macedonian Call. In it he frequently slanted articles at the Review and when his mother died, and his two brothers and one sister (Chester, Allen and Bessie) took over, he increased his attacks. Because he was traveling much of the time as a preacher he found an opportunity to sow the seeds of doubt about the moral, spiritual and scriptural soundness of his brothers, and a great many long-time readers became suspicious. They watched the paper carefully for indications of a trend away from the traditional views. In 1932 they thought they had found such indications.

The June 21, I 932 issue carried an article simply signed "Review Publishers" and entitled "Can't We Agree on Something?" It began with the words, "To those of the Churches of Christ who desire a plan for Unity, we submit the following for your consideration." Fifteen points which had been controversial were discussed. The document proposed that colleges, orphan homes, and societies be disassociated from congregational relationships and maintained by individuals. "The church Contribution is not for that purpose." It suggested that the "Church Contribution" be used for "spreading the Gospel and taking care of the poor."

Each congregation would decide for itself how much preaching or mutual edification it would have. Bible classes were not to be organized into separate departments, and those who opposed them could stay away from them without censure. Actually, the statement was somewhat innocuous and tame when looked at in retrospect, but it became explosive in the atmosphere in which it was launched. No sooner did it hit the mail than D. Austen Sommer zeroed in upon it and called for all "loyalists" to rally round the flag to do or die for the cause we loved.

Although the publishers of the Review replied to the attack by saying it was simply a rough draft of suggestions intended to encourage a re-study of our divided state with a hope of alleviating it, the opposers (of whom I was one of the most vocal) labeled it a written creed. The description of it by the publishers gave us a handle and we called it "The Rough Draft" and this made it possible to identify the supporters and the denouncers of it. Daniel Sommer disclaimed any knowledge of the composition of the document but came to its defence when he became aware of the rabid opposition.

His intervention did not help. D. Austen Sommer said his father was in his dotage and had become soft on the issues because of his age. He pointed out that Alexander Campbell had done the same thing with the missionary society, but Daniel reminded everyone that when Campbell embraced the society he was the same age as D. Austen. Everywhere there were cries that the Review had betrayed the church and "let down the bars so the college preachers could come in and wreck everything, including the faith."

I was twenty-four years old when the storm broke and in my partisan enthusiasm was the one who accepted the challenge of the 82 year old Daniel to debate the issue. Fortunately, the debate did not materialize, but in our correspondence he expressed his sadness that I manifested so much zeal with so little knowledge. He also told me he had hoped his mantle would fall on my shoulders, and that he had earlier thought of Austen as his successor, but was disappointed that he had proven himself to be "a splinter of the butt-cut of humanity."

The situation of the Sommer family became more intense. All communication between D. Austen and the others broke down. Meanwhile the cry was raised among us to force every preacher to take a stand on the "Rough Draft" and to publicly declare himself. In many articles the quotation appeared, "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned." In others we were reminded, "If any man come and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, and neither bid him Godspeed."

With such a spirit rampant among us, division became inevitable. Separation was regarded as the will of God. Maintenance of purity of doctrine by segregation from the compromisers was urged upon every side. The agitation for a mass meeting to be held in a central location to deal with the question became almost universal. There were no doubt some cool heads who cautioned care but they were in the minority and they were shouted down. We wanted action. It was time to show your colors, to put up or shut up! The day for deliberation was past. I think I was one of the ringleaders and I stayed in the thick of the fray by letters and articles. Parties must have "issues" to survive and in the absence of real ones they create their own!