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.).









