Sand Creek Redivivus . . .

LOOKING IN ON THE DENTON LECTURES
(Or, The Emergence of a New Church of Christ Sect) 

Those who have studied the history of the Church of Christ know that it was first listed as a separate body from the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ in the U.S. Census of 1906. The actual separation was decades in the making. It was in Sand Creek, Illinois (near Windsor) in 1889 that a gathering of conservative Disciples heard Daniel Sommer read the "Address and Declaration" in which he withdrew from the "liberals" in such forthright terms as, ''We will no longer recognize them as brethren." He afterwards stated in his journal that "the Church of Christ will soon be as separate from the Christian Church as the Christian Church now is from the denominations. Hallelujah!"

Thus the Church of Christ began with shouts of hallelujah and bulls of excommunication. As heirs of Sand Creek we in the Church of Christ have had a two-headed albatross draped across our necks. One head has imposed upon us the mentality that if we cannot agree we have to divide. Because of the introduction of "humanisms,' to use Sommer's language, such as the preacher-pastor system, missionary societies, and instrumental music, the conservatives presumed they had to leave and start a "sound" church. This mentality has divided and sub-divided us until we now have umpteen factions among us, each supposing itself to be the one and only true Church of Christ.

The other head of the albatross has shackled us with the notion that unity and fellowship are based upon doctrinal uniformity, or that fellowship is equated with endorsement. Sommer supposed that if he had fellowship with a church with a piano that he would be endorsing instrumental music. To fellowship a brother, Sommer concluded, is to endorse or approve of all he believes and practices. This cruel fallacy, however sincerely believed, has been our undoing. This is why our well- meaning brethren will get up and walk Out of a church that they suppose is a true "Church of Christ" once they discover the presence of an organ. To sit through a service where an organ plays is to be a "partaker of another man's sins." Fellowship means approval or endorsement! That is what Sand Creek bequeathed to us.

And Sand Creek gave us our distinct denominational name. Until then we were variously called Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, and even Church of God. But at Sand Creek brother Sommer ruled that "We all can believe that the body of Christians in any given place should be called the 'Church of Christ."' And he used capital C for Church! However many factions we may spawn, there will never be one with any name except Church of Christ, with or without the small c. That is our name, you better believe it, at least since Sand Creek, and we don't want anyone swipin' it!

When I recently attended the Sixth Annual Denton Lectures, only a few furlongs from my home, I was reminded of Sand Creek. The shadow of the two-headed albatross was evident. To be in fellowship we have to agree on all "the issues." To preserve "the faith" we may have to divide. Sand Creek redivivus! The Pearl Street Church of Christ, which sponsors the event, only recently issued a bull of excommunication, which was not unlike Sommer's Sand Creek declaration, in which they withdrew fellowship from other Churches of Christ in the city.

The bull expressed regret that they could no longer enjoy fellowship with the Singing Oaks Church  of Christ.  What  Sommer called "humanisms" the preacher at Pearl Street, called "liberal leanings," which he listed as using denominational films, a cookout on the parking lot, using false teachers, promoting a humanistic "social gospel" by building a "fun and games" recreational center, and for accepting the Fellowship Church of Christ, which is where Ouida and I are members.

The use of "false teachers" is a serious charge, but the reference is to well-known, highly-respected Church of Christ ministers, such as Jim Woodruff, Gary Beauchamp, Bill Banowsky, and Jim Hance. And Jim Hance was a predecessor to Dub McClish at Pearl Street! One wonders how Jim so soon became a "false teacher." Apparently one fits that category if he does not imbibe the spirit now emanating from Pearl Street and the Denton Lectures.

After naming Leroy Garrett as the instigator of Denton's liberalism and Bill Banowsky as a supporter of Billy Graham and a visiting minister in a Methodist church, the Pearl Street Perspective, as the bull was called, closed in Sand Creek-like fashion: "By embracing brethren Garrett and Banowsky, Singing Oaks has thereby embraced Billy Graham, Methodism, the Disciples of Christ, and others. Thus they are now accepting some as brethren who are not God's children. To do so removes them from fellowship with God and His faithful children (1 John 1:6-7; 2 John 9- 11).''

Who are these brethren who dare to serve as God's counselor and thus dictate who His children are and who are not? And whence comes this logic that when a church invites a man to speak it thereby approves of everything the man ever did? It goes this way: Singing Oaks invited Bill Banowsky to speak; Bill Banowsky spoke to a Methodist church; therefore, Singing Oaks embraces Methodism.

The sixth edition of the Annual Denton Lectures (ADL) further reflected this spirit of withdrawal from all other Churches of Christ not of the ADL persuasion. I use ADL for ready reference, not in disrespect in any sense. My presence was moderately conspicuous since my name, along with Carl Ketcherside's, was frequently invoked from the pulpit. But that is OK, for these brethren believe they should condemn concepts long promoted by Carl and me in our journals. So the "Ketcherside-Garrett" reference is a convenient one for them. That doesn't bother me at all, even if it does Ouida (she tries to get me not to go!), and I am confident that it does not bother Carl. All that is part of the struggle in freeing ourselves from . . . Sand Creekism. I go right on loving and accepting them anyhow, and there's not much they can do about that. They, too, are my brothers in Christ, and I intend to treat them as such.

There's an amusing note about the ADL reference. Several folk who came to the lectureship (and there were hundreds there from several states) called us or came by for a visit. One family called Ouida and told her they were here for the ADL. Ouida thought that must be some drug control convention! No, that is not a drug thing, I told her, that's the Annual Denton Lectures at the Pearl Street Church of Christ. It is heresy control, not drug control! At the church they had ADL in large letters behind the speaker. So, ADL is a quick reference for them as well as my purposes herein.

Another amusing note is that when ADL folk came for a visit they had to do so at their own risk, and it was just as well with them that no one knew. "We'll not breath a word," we assured them. After all, since Leroy Garrett is a heretic, and John Doe visits with Leroy Garrett, it follows that John Doe is . . . It is invincible logic!

What is not so amusing but grievously tragic is that we seem to have yet another division among us. The ADL branded other Churches of Christ and preachers as unfaithful. In reference to foreign missions, only those churches of the ADL persuasion are "sound," the others being "liberal." They have their own papers and schools. Impressed as I was that a new faction is forming, I asked some of the ADL leaders if I were reading events aright. "Is a new division forming?," I asked Tom Bright of Ft. Worth, a good and amiable brother who probably knows as much about all this as anyone. He conceded that a new division was in the making, but he was not sure what form it would take.

Those less acquainted with Churches of Christ may be confused as to who the ADL brethren are. They are not to be confused with the "Conservative" Churches of Christ, sometimes referred to as "Antis," (or anti-Herald of Truth) which is now a generation old. We have long since had a Church of Christ of that persuasion in Denton and all across the country, which I also sometimes visit. The ADL folk might be described as within the mainline Church of Christ tradition but reactionary to change and far right wing. They are like the Church of Christ of the 1940's. Their heroes are of that generation. In fact, when I am with them I somewhat delight in the nostalgia. It is like going back to when I was a boy growing up in the "right" church. They do things like count the number of verses that a preacher quotes in his sermon, measuring its virtue thereby. And they insist on preaching against instrumental music as a grievous sin, and scoring the denominations. Old-time Church of Christism! But to them, and they are as sincere and honest as the rest of us, it is defending the truth. There are hundreds of congregations of this persuasion.

Looking in on the ADL had its blessings. I got to see, hear or greet many old4imers, some of whom I have known for forty years, and they were all there: Ira Rice, Tom Warren, Roy Deaver, Robert Taylor, Johnny Ramsey, Bill Cline Editor, Firm Foundation), Bert Thompson, Gary Workman, to name a few. Then there were the rank-and-file brethren: a couple who had me in their home in Florida 35 years ago, people with whom I attended school, etc. I love them all and I cherish the memories.

The surprise blessing, however, was evidence that the ADL brethren talk about Ketcherside-Garrett so much, and read our stuff so critically, that we are influencing them when they may not realize it. Alan Highers, a prince of a man and an appellate judge in Tennessee, exhorted the ADL ministers to preach against instrumental music ("Like we used to"), which I expected, but he added his misgiving, "But I am not comfortable with the argument on 'the law of silence,'" which I did not expect. Carl Ketcherside and I have insisted for decades that "the law of silence," which has been the basis of the argument for the sinfulness of instrumental music, is nonsense. It would take a judge, I presume, to convince the ADL, if they are convinced, that no law can be drawn from the silence of Scripture.

I hope H. A. "Buster" Dobbs, one of the editors of the Firm Foundation, gets the message from one of his own (If I had said what the judge said it would have been branded heresy!), for you will remember an open letter in this journal urging brother Dobbs not to make such an argument at a unity forum with our Christian Church brothers. The ADL, by the way, is strongly opposed to the unity forums, for there is no reason to meet with Christian Church folk unless they show a willingness to give up the instrument, which they make a condition to fellowship.

It was interesting that Judge Highers went on to say that we can refer to the "significance of Biblical silence," the very term I used in my appeal to brother Dobbs. Yes, of course, there may be significance to the Bible's silence on any subject, but what is made of that silence is a matter of opinion, not a matter of law.

I thought it noteworthy that amidst all the denunciations of instrumental music that one of their own number would question the main argument against it, the law of silence, from their own platform.

That is not all. Gary Workman, one of their editors, commenting on 1 John 1:7 ("If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another"), which is home base for the ADL in drawing the line of fellowship. That is, if you use instrumental music, etc. you are not walking in the light and therefore not to be fellowshipped. Gary conceded that one might be innocently wrong about some things and still walk in the light. He added that that does not mean that one might believe anything and everything and still walk in the light.

Again, that is what Carl and I have been saying all these years, but it is not what they have been saying in opposing us. They have insisted that we have to agree on all these points of dispute before we can walk in the light and be in fellowship. I agree with what Gary Workman is now saying. Brethren may sincerely differ or be innocently wrong about some things and walk in the light of Christ together, and those differences might be whether we have a Sunday School, how we interpret the millennium, or whether we use an instrument. Honest, sincere differences. So, one can be honestly in error about the instrument and still walk in the light. I also agree with him that we cannot believe any fool thing or nothing and still walk in the light and be in fellowship with Christ.

So you can see why I remain an optimist after all these years. It may be that Sand Creek redivivus will rise up and crush Sand Creekism among us. After all, even Daniel Sommer lived to regret the spirit of Sand Creek. The Holy Spirit may be at work in some of us even while we deny his presence, and even in our factiousness we may sow the seeds of unity. One of the great lines in Scripture is in Gal. 1:23: "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith he once tried to destroy." Never give up hope. Today's factionist may be tomorrow's unitist.

That is one more reason why we should love and accept as equals all those for whom Christ died, and not just those who are in our party. A true liberal (It is a great word; look it up in the dictionary) is one who is not narrow or prejudiced in his thinking, one who is open to new ideas and experiences, and one who listens with respect to those with whom he differs - those to his right and to his left alike. No one is so illiberal as the "liberal" who looks down his nose at those he presumes to be beneath him. When we are so judgmental as to say "I cannot abide those people," we need to ask ourselves if we truly follow Jesus Christ.

I invite you to consider my rule: I love and accept all those that Jesus loves and accepts. That includes women, children, lepers, prostitutes, sinners, the maimed, the sick, the demonic, and even the errant Pharisees. And so I love and accept all my sisters and brothers in Christ because Jesus accepts them. Like him, I accept them all and agree with none! —the Editor

__________________________

Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands morn. —Robert Burns