by Steve Wolfgang
Synopsis: Paul said, "Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction . . ." Similarly, we learn valuable lessons from the struggles that earlier generations faced as they sought to restore the ancient order.
It was good to attend the cordial, brotherly discussion between Doug Burleson and Kyle Pope at Dickson, TN, on November 15, 2019, and to interact in conversation before and after the discussion with brethren "on both ends of the bench." Various examples from our shared history were described during the discussion, and it occurred to me that some historical background might help us assess where we are today, and how things got to this point.
A century ago, during the "Roaring Twenties," the brotherhood of churches of Christ churned with controversy. Christians a generation earlier had made common cause to preserve the New Testament practice of acappella music in the worship of the church. However, other disagreements had surfaced among fellow believers. The Great War of 1914-18 had strained the agreement of many (brought on mainly by the bitter experiences of the Civil War two generations prior) that Christians should not participate in carnal warfare.
By the 1920s, the "war question" was only a part of the network of issues disturbing churches which had rejected instrumental music. Other divisive issues had arisen, including church support of human institutions such as a "Christian college" or the few orphanages in existence at the time; separate Bible study classes (and use of "human literature" or "lesson leaves"); women teaching such classes or speaking in the assembly; issues concerning the bread and cup in communion; doctrinal issues including "sect baptism" and premillennialism; Christians holding political office, or voting; and many other personal moral/ethical matters including divorce and remarriage, "social" drinking, and many more such issues. 1
Daniel Sommer had become known for his participation over the decades in debating and editorializing about many such issues. 2 Enrolling in Bethany College in 1869 (only three years after Alexander Campbell's death), he observed first-hand the growing demand for various institutions. In 1889, at the Sand Creek church in central Illinois, Sommer participated in the composition and announcement of the "Address and Declaration" (a reversal of the title of Thomas Campbell's 1809 "Declaration and Address"). This document became known as the first public proposal for the disfellowshipping of those who were introducing instrumental music into the church's worship, and church support of various "institutions." Sommer also was often called as an expert witness in numerous trials over church property as congregations divided over instrumental music and parachurch agencies. 3 As late as 1926, Sommer debated with Texan J.N. Cowan at Sullivan, IN, regarding several such issues that had divided the church there and elsewhere.
Yet, a lifetime of conflict caused Sommer and many who had agreed with his various positions to reflect on the outcome of their extensive involvement in spiritual controversy. He spent the last decade of his ninety years on earth attempting to bridge differences with his alienated brethren.
Sommer began his explorations toward unity with his disaffected brethren in the Christian Churches who, during his lifetime, had introduced instrumental music into the worship of the church. He formed a personal friendship with Frederick D. Kershner of the Christian Churches, just as those churches were dividing into the International Convention of the Disciples of Christ and the more conservative "Christian Churches and Churches of Christ." The latter group created a new religious "fellowship" in 1927 by organizing themselves into the North American Christian Convention (NACC). As the Disciples of Christ increasingly moved toward the "mainstream" of denominationalism and the ecumenical movement, churches which had agreed to adopt instrumental music a generation or so before discovered that they had increasingly more, and more serious, differences that drove them further and further apart. Usage of instrumental music in worship was not enough to hold them together.
Kershner, educated under J.W. McGarvey at the College of the Bible in Lexington, KY, and then at Princeton University, became friends with Sommer, who lived near the campus in Indianapolis when Kershner became Dean of the Butler University School of Religion. 4 Kershner also arranged for Sommer to visit and discuss matters with other influential Disciples such as Peter Ainslie, who was prominently involved in the ecumenical movement.
After several years of such discussions, it became apparent that the differences were so significant that further discussion with those in Christian Churches (especially the Disciples of Christ), was futile and unproductive. Sommer turned his attention toward his brethren in the non-instrumental churches, who he said had at least "kept the worship pure."
Sommer was the long-time editor (since 1886) of the American Christian Review, an influential paper begun by the "restoration" pioneer Benjamin Franklin. Sommer had re-named it the Apostolic Review, and in 1932, an article appeared in the Review, endorsed by Sommer but written in collaboration with others, which became known by its sub-title: The "Rough Draft for Christian Unity" (The actual title was "Can't We Agree on Something?").
In 1933, shortly after the publication of the "Rough Draft," Sommer embarked upon the first of several extensive trips to visit brethren in "the Southland" where many of the non-instrumental Churches of Christ (and all of the Bible colleges associated with them) were located. Sommer had earned a reputation as an opponent of the "Bible colleges" through several debates with representatives of those institutions in the early twentieth century. His opposition was fierce enough that the epithet "Sommerism" (originally coined as a result of his opposition to instrumental music) became a code-word for opposition to the colleges. Much of his adverse reaction to the colleges was their extremist attitudes demanding financial support of the institutions. One such example was a letter to churches from J.N. Armstrong, son-in-law of James A. Harding (and later president of the college named for Harding). Armstrong wrote, "the starting of this work does not depend on your gift. . . Your salvation may depend upon it, but the school does not. If you have means in your hands and are a servant of God, it is God's means . . . ." 5
As Sommer visited the colleges (including Lipscomb, Freed-Hardeman, and Abilene Christian), speaking with their presidents and other brethren, he began to hear a much more moderate appeal regarding church support of colleges and other institutions. He perceived a change in the college advocates to defend their existence as individually-supported "adjuncts to the home" rather than "church institutions" and thus was willing to consider them "in the light of Romans 14th chapter." Some may have perceived Sommer's reaction to these changes as an "apology" for his prior objections, but actually it was a response to the changing nature of the position argued by college advocates. Some of Sommer's children, who operated the Review office while he was on the road, later opined that Daniel had been deceived into believing that the colleges did not accept church support, when in fact, they did. As his protégé, W.W. Otey put it, "They all do it, and they all deny it."
Sommer died in 1940, within an eighteen-month "window" which also saw the deaths of J.D. Tant, Joe Warlick, F.B. Srygley, and other well-known preachers who had resisted earlier "innovations." A new generation of church leaders bought into the boosterism of post-World War II years, and the number of institutions mushroomed, all seemingly begging churches for funds.
Past historical practice, or "tradition," is certainly no authority for defining scriptural practices. One point in this long, historical excursion is this: I have often wondered if the ideas expressed in the "Rough Draft" had been adopted and more consistently applied, perhaps much of the heartache of divisions of the last century might have been avoided. What if brethren had simply left the financial support of colleges (or the sky-rocketing number of orphanages which sprang up) to individual conscience and participation? This would not likely solve issues relating to instruments or other "congregational" issues, but it certainly would have created an environment to better discuss such issues, or personal moral questions such as "carnal warfare," divorce/remarriage, on a congregational, case-by-case basis. Another take-away is that "we" are not the first generation to wrestle with divisive issues. Such issues will not be resolved with a single discussion, but will necessitate an on-going process. It is also true that historical accounts serve as actual, real-life examples of the outcomes of continually insisting on church support of human institutions. Hopefully, we can do better!
Enough of the past. There are a few things I'd like to see and consider, going forward, and hoping that this discussion might continue in one format or venue or another.
First, though the discussion on this point, like others, was slightly disjointed, there seemed to be some contention that the body (the church) may (or must?) do whatever the head of the body (Christ) did while on earth. An illustration of the point is: Jesus feeding the multitudes authorizes churches to do the same, not limiting it to Christians. In some ways, this seems a "first cousin" to an older argument: "Whatever the individual can do, the church can do."
Second, Jesus's feeding the multitudes occurred miraculously, a phenomenon not available to Christians today. One question to address, going forward, is whether this same reasoning applies to other (or all?) of Jesus's acts. He also healed individuals miraculously, including non-Israelites. Would this same rationale authorize churches to organize medical/healing enterprises (e.g., maintaining church-sponsored hospitals or medical clinics)?
Third, when I reviewed a previous meeting involving Kyle, Doug, myself, and others, 6 I commented that I heard nothing "new," which had not been advanced beforehand. At Dickson, Doug did inject some new terminology into the discussion, briefly referencing recent scholarship pertaining to patron-client relationships and the roles of benefactors/mediators. As intriguing as this might be, even commentators like N.T. Wright have cautioned that "We should not be overly hasty, however, either to draw immediate exegetical or historical conclusions from this. . ." and warning that some have drawn conclusions which are "overdrawn." 7 I'd like to hear more about how Doug thinks citing these recent studies alters the clear meaning of New Testament texts which have been the subject of this discussion for decades. As interesting as grasping the cultural context of biblical circumstances might be, invoking such contexts does not alter the essence of the biblical text. Ancient cultural backgrounds may provide "color" to the biblical picture, but that context is not the primary picture.
Finally, what about church support of human institutions (including colleges)? Past appeals for church support of institutions were made under the emotional plea of "helping poor, starving orphans." N.B. Hardeman's appeal in 1947 that the orphanage and college "stand or fall together" was largely rejected by a brotherhood not interested in supporting educational institutions (often perceived as inevitably drifting into apostasy and taking like-minded churches with them). The same argument, proposed a generation later by Herald of Truth preacher Batsell Barrett Baxter, was more favorably received. Recent developments, including distributions to churches from the Comer Trust, seem to have re-ignited the interest of various colleges in openly soliciting contributions from churches. This is a "sticking point," which deserves more specific attention in future discussions.
Let brotherly discussion continue!
1 More information regarding these divisive issues among churches of Christ, and Sommer's later attempts to mitigate them, can be found in Steve Wolfgang, "Controversy Concerning Unity Movements Among Churches of Christ," in Their Works Do Follow Them: Florida College Annual Lectures, edited by Melvin Curry (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 1982), pp. 212-239.
2 For a brief introduction to Sommer's life and influence, see J.S. Wolfgang, "Daniel Sommer (1850-1940)," in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 692-694. This indispensable reference work also contains more detailed information on other individuals discussed in this article, including Benjamin Franklin, Frederick D. Kershner, Peter Ainslie, James A. Harding, J.N. Armstrong, Roy E. Cogdill, and others.
3 A much more detailed account of these events is in James Stephen Wolfgang, "A Life of Humble Fear: The Biography of Daniel Sommer" (Butler University MA thesis, 1975)—including Sommer's relationship with Kershner, his "Southern tours" in the 1930s, and how this relates to various divisive issues among churches of Christ. Appendixes include reprints of the "Address and Declaration" and "The Rough Draft for Christian Unity," as well as Frederick D. Kershner's eloquent obituary of Daniel Sommer.
4 Kershner was a highly respected figure among the Disciples who tried to prevent the division between the increasingly alienated branches of the Christian Churches, serving as president of Texas Christian University and holding editorial positions at both the NACC-oriented paper, the Christian Standard, and the more theologically-liberal Disciples' paper, the Christian-Evangelist. Kershner publicly commended Sommer's writings for their consistency and biblical orientation and invited him to speak several times at the Butler lectureship (known as the Mid-Summer Institutes).
5 Lloyd Cline Sears, For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1969), p. 74. Sears was Armstrong's son-in-law and Dean of Harding College. When questioned years later about the extremism of his statement, Armstrong replied, "I like it yet."
6 That discussion is available in book form as Pursuing the Pattern; reviews of that meeting appeared as "Exploring Current Issues," in Truth Magazine, January 2018; see also "Ten Things to Know About Orphan-Hating Antis" by Steve Wolfgang in the same issue.
7 N.T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), p. 251. Wright is here referencing recent works on patron/client relationships in honor/shame cultures by scholars such as DeSilva, Malina, and Neyrey.
Author Bio: Steve has worked with the church in Downers Grove (suburban Chicago) since 2008. He and his wife, Bette, have two adult children and three grandchildren. His blog, eklektikos, can be read at stevewolfgang.wordpress.com. He can be reached at stevewolfgang@aol.com or wolf@uky.edu.
