Restoration History: The Sand Creek Address - Church In-fights

         Evaluation of The Sand Creek Address (1889)

W. Carl Ketcherside considered the Sand Creek document “divisive”, labeling it a tool that was as “unscriptural as ever, conceived by the minds of partisan men”. It was a “death knell for the autonomy of the local congregation”.  One of the pillars of the Restoration Movement was Unity; therefore, according to Ketcherside, the Sand Creek Address failed to achieve this. This was certainly a far cry from the methods used in the past at unification. Around 1827, John Wright encouraged both the Stone followers in Indiana and the “New Lights” to “unite and face their problems together; and to call themselves Christians” (North, 189). The Sand Creek document served the opposite purpose. In their attempt to unify on ideas, the writers of the document were promoting separation. Congregations were encouraged to “disfellowship from one another” (Ketch.) and elders were encouraged to “pronounce the sentence of spiritual death upon another congregation over which they held no jurisdiction” (Ketch.).

If the writers of the Sand Creek Address were to have embraced anything, it would have been a sense of balance adopted by the early fathers. It was a challenge for them as well, but they used “Scripture alone as the basis of Christian Teaching and Identity” while still trying to achieve the “Unity of all Believers” (North, 353). Indeed, the writers of the Sand Creek document sought doctrinal purity, but at what expense? Ketcherside states the document had partisan foundation. The approach was unbiblical. The authors of the document believed they were sincere; but the outcome “worked against the interest of peace and unity” (Ketch.). For example, brethren who are accused of innovations and corruptions would be “disinherited from the family of God and no longer recognized as His children” (Ketch.) Basically, if these churches did not conform they were excommunicated. This is almost “gangsta”. How can we treat each other in this manner for a mere difference of opinion? If we are to deal with our issues, then ideally, we should “face our differences” biblically (John Wright). Certainly, we cannot deal with our issues if it means “advocacy of any system which proposes to divide God’s people into various camps, cliques, splinters and segments” (Ketch.). And throughout the Restoration Movement we saw leaders “take any one concern and work on it to the exclusion of all else” (North, 353). This is also an unhealthy way of dealing with issues. Perhaps the leaders could have adopted Rupertus Meldinius’ slogan “In essentials, we must have unity. In non-essentials, let us allow liberty. And in all things, let us show love” (Stone, 44). This is a great place to begin when confronting doctrinal challenges.

                                Issues Facing The Church

1.            Whether or not to use musical instruments during church                          services 2.            Whether or not to pay the preacher a salary 3.            Whether or not to support missionary societies

                                                                                             (Ketcherside)

The Sand Creek document referred to the abovementioned list (a few among many concerns) as “unlawful methods; objectionable and unauthorized things now taught and practiced in many congregations; innovations and corruptions” (Ketch.) Similar language was used against establishing Bible Schools. These innovations I find were merely avenues to enhance worship, enhance ministry through reasonable reward and extend ministry reach.

One could say there was a legitimate fear of new things or “innovations”. Not sure how I would have responded at the time. As it was in the 1800’s we find that Christians have responded the same towards “new things”, calling the internet evil and banning television from homes until years later a “Christian liberal” made use of the medium which was to the benefit of the ministry. One thing was clear, the power of the pen swayed the masses in that period. Editors of papers had the power to influence the masses, as was the case of this Sand Creek Address. It was Ben Franklin who penned his opinion regarding instrumental music in worship services, stating music was allowed under three (3) circumstances: (1) “Where a church had lost or never had the spirit of Christ”, (2) “Where a preacher had lost or never had the spirit of Christ and cannot keep his audience’s interest”, (3) “If the church intends to be only a fashionable society, a place of amusement and secular entertainment and not a place of religion and worship” (North, 223). In my view, these are opinions. Regardless of the issue, the early leaders were narrow minded.  “Newness was suspicious in the minds of many” (North, 219).

While even Alexander Campbell first opposed paid clergy as it raised concerns including “proper church structure” (North, 219), his views shifted later. Although, he was well off and did not have to worry about making a living outside of ministry.  By the mid 1800’s, cultural changes in society resulted in many more churches (especially in the cities) could now afford to pay a fulltime minister “called a pastor” to direct his efforts in one place. This made sense but was an obvious source of

contention earlier (North, 219).

On the matter of Missionary Societies, “many claimed mission societies were wrong in and of themselves because they were unscriptural and viewed as a threat to the freedom of local churches” (North, 241).  Taking a hard line on Scriptures, W. K. Pendleton said, “There was no express precept in the Scriptures commanding missionary societies” (the view of many), although he admitted that it was wrong to categorize the silence of the Bible as prohibitive. Thomas Campbell stated “Where the Scripture speaks, we speak. Where the Scripture is silent, we are silent” (Stone, 46). Yet Thomas also stated, “Where necessary, the church could adopt human expedients to accomplish the spread of the Gospel” (North, 242). These were difficult matters for the early church as they favored the first part of the slogan but struggled with the latter.

 The Bible did not speak to any of those three issues directly, but adopting these measures were not in any way unscriptural. There was no “Thus saith the Lord” (Stone, 47), especially in the New Testament for these innovations either. Yet, the employment of these measures became the source of division among the brethren; these matters going before the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois (1906).

Yet another influencing factor was the rise of Liberalism within the church. Many considered “liberalism as an insidious erosion of biblical authority”. The Liberals did not “accept the veracity of Scripture, did not follow its teachings with regard to believer’s immersion and congregational autonomy” (North, 280). These were core platforms of the Restoration Movement. The incursion of the Liberals brought “an attitude of openness and toleration, and a willingness to be free from encrusted traditions” (North, 255). Many rejected plenary inspiration and favored open membership. The strategy for the takeover was brilliant – liberals took over the schools, the educational system, purchased and effectively utilized print media (power of the pen) and key positions throughout the Movement. Possibly the success of Liberalism was “the exposure to classroom teaching through which the seeds of the future Liberal conflict were sown” (North, 266). Liberal presuppositions were forced upon the masses.

 I call it a brutal take over of Conservatism. For the Liberals, a form of unity was more important than adherence to biblical authority. With the help of the Lord, the solution to Liberalism lies in employment of the same approach – a concentrated effort to spread Biblical Conservatism, starting with the church, the educational system, which will lead to areas of government and influence. Christian Conservatives in places of influence is what we need. Over the decades, “Liberalism has done great injury to the masses” (North, 271), and this exposure has become culturally acceptable in societies the world over. If we are to win this Liberal world, then we must “Speak the truth in love, resolve to not compromise what is essential, nor be dogmatic about what isn’t” (Stone, 62,65)

                                                            Dealing With The Issues

Sam Stone has a few ideas on dealing with these divisive issues. If the writers of the Sand Creek Address bothered to take the time, even to revisit the original intent of the Restoration movement some 80 years earlier, they would have found biblical guidance for the issues at hand:

o   First: “Scripture encourages Christians to show understanding and grace in dealing with each other (these matters should not have landed in court) Romans 14: 1-3

o   Second: “Christians don’t have to agree on disputable matters; and when they do disagree, they should not pass judgment on each other (Romans 14:4)

o   Third: We should allow a brother to hold his opinion; but we should not allow anyone to hold an opinion as a test for fellowship

o   Fourth: We should never allow our opinions or preferences to become unity-threatening issues (as was the case with the Sand Creek Address). Decisions on matters to which the Bible is silent could be evaluated on the basis of “Is this pleasing to God”?

o   Fifth: “We must stand solidly on biblical faith yet allow freedom in matters of opinion”. Stone refers to the Apostle Paul as the example in a master innovator – “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Daniel Sommer and Peter Warren would have easily excommunicated the Apostle Paul for his methods.

Ultimately, what we do not want is to become sectarian and isolationist in our responses because we place the emphasis on “biblical authority to the exclusion of any concern for unity” (North, 353). Again, balance is needed. Quoting from Alexander Campbell, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Koffarnus, Lecture). Narrowmindedness is never helpful, nor is treating each other as the enemy. Division is never God’s plan. He encourages us to live in peace (Philippians 2:23).

  

References:

Stone, S. Simply Christians. United States of America: College Press Publishing (2005)

North, J. Union In Truth. United States of America: The Standard Publishing Company (1994)

Sand Creek Address. Retrieved from Unit 6 Lectures https://cccb.instructure.com/courses/375/assignments/11390?module_item_id=27481

GoogleImages.

Written by Pastor Kevin A. Hall (03.04.18)