25 “True” Churches of Christ and Counting. . .

MUST THE DIVISIONS CONTINUE?

This letter from a reader in Dumas, Texas will serve as a basis for this article.

The Church of Christ in Dumas has divided again. Now we have five factions, with very limited fellowship. We continue to love all the folks we know in each of them, as well as the Presbyterians we work for each day and many other lovely Christians in other buildings. The terrible, sad thing is that so much hate has been generated. Each new group seems to be more exclusivistic than before. There are some beautiful, faithful people involved in the breakup, but they cannot see what is happening. Each one will say he or she is trying to keep the Church of the Lord pure and couldn’t do it where there were.

Dumas is a small west Texas town, and yet there are now five different kinds of Churches of Christ, each claiming to be the faithful church of the New Testament, with hardly any having anything to do with the others. What a scandal this is for a people who claim to be heirs of a unity movement! How can the citizens of Dumas be expected to take us seriously when we present five different interpretations of what it means to be “the restored church of the New Testatment”? It is apparent that something is terribly wrong, something way down deep in our religion. We divide and divide and divide, hating each other every step of the way. It is evident to the world that we have enough religion to cause us to hate but not enough to cause us to love.

Some of our own leaders are recognizing the seriousness of this problem. Reuel Lemmons, writing in the Firm Foundation (1979, p. 450), observed that “A movement which began on the glorious note of uniting the Christians in all the sects has degenerated in a mere century and a half, into subdividing that unity into narrow, sectarian camps.” He dared to reach the unthinkable conclusion: “Each splinter splinters further. The very obvious fact is evidence that something is basically wrong in the attitude and aim of the movement.”

A Disciples of Christ historian has written similarly to the above: “This spectacle of divided unionists is the most obvious indication that somewhere in the program of the movement is to be found the cause of schism.” (Grounds of Division Among Disciples of Christ, 1940)

A recent Ph.D. thesis has attempted to identify the cause of all this divisiveness, as if in response to the problem raised by Lemmons and DeGroot. C. W. Zenor, a fourth generation member of the Church of Christ and a graduate of Abilene Christian, wrote his thesis at the Ilif School of Theology (Denver) on A History of Biblical Interpretation in the Church of Christ: 1901-1976. He concludes that the reason Churches of Christ continue to divide can be found in the way they interpret the Scriptures. He studied the writings of three of the church’s leaders of successive generations: David Lipscomb, G. C. Brewer, and J. D. Thomas.

“The biblical interpretation of Lipscomb, Brewer, Thomas, and others in the Church of Christ,” he concludes, “has resulted in the creation of approximately twenty-five different kinds of Churches of Christ which have little or no fellowship with one another.”

He finds the Church of Christ formula for unity simple: “Our correct interpretation of the Bible has restored the one true New Testament church of the apostolic era and only as men are willing to become members of this saved body may they participate in authentic Christian unity.”

Tracing this to the way the Church of Christ has interpreted the Scriptures, Zenor says: “The Bible was seen as a blueprint or pattern for the individual and collective life of the restored one true church.” He charges that his people have created a “canon within the biblical canon” by selecting only those features of primitive Christianity that they believe should be restored. He not only questions the “proof-text” method and the “commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences,” which he found common in the church’s attempt to prove its positions, but he challenges the essence of Church of Christism: the Church of Christ is the one true restored institution of man’s salvation, and the beliefs and practices of this church accurately reflect New Testament teaching.

One of our own sons, schooled at Abilene, concluded his Ph.D. thesis with: “Theoretically, there is no end to the divisions in the Church of Christ because of its particular type of biblical interpretation.” He would not be surprised, therefore, by the report from Dumas: five different kinds of Churches of Christ in one west Texas town.

It is no wonder that he would also conclude: “It is difficult to imagine how the interpretation of the Bible by these three men could have shown itself to have failed, in any more dramatic manner, to have brought about the avowed purposes of the Restoration Movement, than in the divisions, as seen in the foregoing list, and the potential for more in the future.”

Now and again I am asked to provide a list of all these factions among us, a request that I do not attempt to satisfy. Except for the way I handled this matter in my history book, by placing all the factions in five “clusters,” I have never attempted a detailed list, even though I am acquainted with most all the factions. For the sake of the record and to accommodate those who are interested I will herein present the list that Zenor compiled for his thesis. He finds 47 “divisions” in the Movement as a whole, but this list will be confined to the Churches of Christ.

1. Firm Foundation faction (1884). The journal was started to champion the view that those who were not knowingly baptized for the remission of sins had to be rebaptized.

2. Church of Christ separation (Sand Creek, II., 1889). A document of withdrawal of fellowship was prepared and read on this occasion.

3. Black Churches of Christ (post Civil War to present). He quotes A. J. Hairston, a black Church of Christ scholar: “The cold truth is that black and white churches of Christ represent two distinct fellowships.”

4. Anti-baptistery (about 1900). Some who believed one should be immersed only in natural bodies of water stood aloof from those who accepted the baptistery innovation.

5. Order of worship (1888). Led by Alfred Ellmore, this group insisted that the order given in Acts 2:42 must be followed. Some of these churches still exist.

6. Sommerism (by 1907). Led by Daniel Sommer, this group became separate because of its opposition to Christian colleges and a professional ministry.

7. Anti-women teachers (about 1910). When classes began to be accepted, only males did the teaching. When women began to teach, it caused another faction.

8. Anti-literature (about 1910). Some accepted both classes and women teachers, but insisted that only the Bible should be used.

9. Anti-communion cups (about 1920). When individual cups became vogue, many insisted that “the cup” instituted by Jesus should obtain.

10. Premillennialism (began 1930’s). Many congregations were excluded for holding this view.

11. Anti-fermented wine (late 1920’s). When some advocated use of wine instead of grape juice, it became a dividing point.

12. Anti-Sunday School (1920-1940). During these years there was a great deal of debating on this issue, and dividing, though there was anti-SS sentiment in the Movement since the 1820’s. There are today some 800 non-SS churches, but they are sub-divided several ways.

13. Loaf must be broken twice (1940’s). Called “the bread breakers,” they are separate from those who break the loaf but once or not at all. This is a faction within the non-SS group.

14. Only leavened bread for communion (1940’s).

15. No plate for communion bread (1940’s). The unleavened bread is to be passed person to person by hand only.

16. Contribution to be laid on table (1940’s).

17. Communion must be taken around the table (1940’s). The Supper is not to be served away from the table.

18. No breaking of bread before passing. (1940’s).

19. No handle on communion cup. (1940’s).

20. Cup must have handle (1940’s). These last eight factions fall within the non-SS/one cup cluster of churches.

21. Non-cooperative, “conservative” Churches of Christ (1950’s). Sometimes called antis or anti-Herald of Truth, this is the largest of the divisions, with as many as 100,000 adherents.

22. Divorce and remarriage (1950-1980).

23. Unity in Diversity (1958 to present). Led by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, “This perspective has now been accepted by a great many in the mainstream Church of Christ.”

24. Support of orphan homes (1960’s). Even among pro-home advocates there was conflict over whether elders of the church should be the board for the home or whether the home should have a separate board.

25. Liberal churches (1963 on). Zenor places his own Wheat Ridge Heights Church of Christ in this category and names it as one of first. He estimates that 100 churches would fall within this category.

26. Tongue-speaking (by 1965). He refers to the many that were disfellowshipped over this issue, including Pat Boone in 1970, because of “tongue-singing.”

27. Division within non-cooperatives (1966 on). Led by Editor Charles A. Holt, part of the anti-Herald of Truth group contended for a more democratic rule of the churches, with almost no structural form and a denial of authoritative eldership.

28. Moderating group within mainstream Church of Christ (by 1967). Led by Ira Rice, this group is somewhere between the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Guardian of the “conservative” churches. Zenor sees such “flux” in this area that it is difficult to tell if these “moderates” will become completely separate, but he suggests that the lines are already drawn.

There you have the list, which is probably as complete as you will find. Zenor supposes it is the only one available since it is such an unpopular subject. So as to present only the Church of Christ factions, I renumbered his list, but the breakdown is his own.

I was surprised to find what Zenor calls “the Ketcherside/Garrett type churches” in his list since they draw no lines of fellowship, but he states that this persuasion is the only one (beside his own, the “Liberal” churches) that does not follow the kind of Biblical interpretation that he is challenging. I credit him for being perceptive enough to recognize that while Carl Ketcherside and I are different in our handling of Scripture and church problems, we are not liberal. Brother Zenor, I understand (from a phone conversation), goes so far as to question the historical basis of traditional Christianity and identifies, more or less, with the Unitarian persuasion. It is very odd, therefore, that he would care to list his church within Church of Christ categories. It just shows what ACU and four generations can do to a guy, even a Unitarian!

One of the “conservative” journals a few years back reported on a conversation with C. W. Zenor, whom they were “writing up” as a liberal. When Zenor was asked if he was “as liberal as Leroy Garrett,” he made it quite clear that he was far to the left of the editor of Restoration Review. The author of the article supposed that no one in the Church of Christ could be farther to the left than I!

It is ironic that Carl Ketcherside and I have all these years been christened by our loving brethren as liberals, while in fact when it comes to the basics of the faith we are probably more conservative than our critics. If we are “liberals” among Churches of Christ, it is only because we do not believe in making instrumental music a test of fellowship or because we believe there are Christians in other churches. If that makes us liberals, then all the early leaders of our Movement were liberals, with the possible exception of one man, Moses E. Lard.

So it is reassuring that at least one scholarly effort among us would put old Carl and me where we belong, open, free, inclusive, but still holding to the fundamentals of our historic faith.

One more point from Zenor’s thesis. After examining the Church of Christ’s handling of Scripture through 325 pages, he concludes by pointing to the cost of “the authoritarian attitude.” He says it has blinded us to the insights and discoveries that would have come through a more open fellowship, and it has kept others from seriously examining our plea. “Thus, genuine truth-seeking, real communication, and any authentic progress in biblical interpretation were severely curtailed,” he states.

That is too high a price to pay. With the world aflame with wars, starvation, crime, terrorism, and with secularism, materialsim, and consumerism running rampant, we cannot be the true Church of Christ upon earth unless we learn to love one another even as He has loved us. And when His love is poured into hearts through the indwelling Spirit, we will with a united voice bear witness to a lost and suffering world.—the Editor