For months the Joplin Unity Summit was advertised far and wide, and I was able to attend it on August 7th, 8th, and 9th, 1984—30 years ago. Many, especially newer Christians, have probably never heard of the event, and others may only have incidental knowledge of what occurred and why. These articles will review the mechanics of the meeting, the significance of it, and what has happened since. Throughout this article I will be quoting from my review written two months after attending it and published on October 21 and 28 in the Southside Mirror (Volume 16:43-44).
The Mechanics
One hundred men were invited to take part in the program. Fifty men from the Independent Christian Churches and fifty from the churches of Christ met to discuss unity (16:43).
At the time, I was working with a church in Peoria, Illinois, and knew a fellow preacher in nearby Lincoln. He had been invited to be one of 100 men to participate in the “summit.” The reason he had been selected is that he had formed a relationship with at least one individual at Lincoln Christian College, which served Independent Christian Churches. In fact, he had spoken there to students and had explained without compromise or apology what our rationale was for not using instruments of music in worship.
It was he who encouraged me to make arrangements to attend what was certain to be a historic event. It happened that Barb and I had close friends who lived in Joplin; so we took our vacation in order to visit with them and for me to attend the unity meeting. Tuesday afternoon, my friend and I stopped by the campus of what was then called Ozark Bible College and picked up a schedule of events. We both attended the opening lecture that evening. It was then that we learned something strange.
The entire three-day conference was not open to everyone, and we shortly discovered this fact. I had found my friend from Lincoln, and he asked if I would be attending the next day. We went to ask Alan Cloyd (the one from the churches of Christ who had organized the summit) if that was permissible, since it had been announced that three or four invitees had been unable to attend.
He refused, adding that the “study groups” were especially arranged. Anyone, however, was welcome to listen to the main speeches. The next day it became clear why “just anyone” was not allowed to participate when it was announced that each man had been picked on the basis of (among other things) his disposition and temperament. Two days later my group leader commented, “One rabble-rouser can ruin a whole conference.” (It is not my intention here to rouse any rabble; any rabble reading this article should stop at once.) (16:43).
So how did I get into one of the ten study groups? I had decided to come Wednesday morning to hear the two lectures. During the intervening discussion session I would just sit and read. While I was engaged in that very task, Ken Idleman, the president of Ozark Bible College, walked past and asked if I’d be interested in filling one of the vacancies in a study group. It took about one-tenth of a second to mull it over before giving him an affirmative response and hastily joining the group discussion which was already in progress. From that point on I was allowed to participate in every session (16:43).
How ironic that “our” guy adamantly refused to allow me to participate in the activities, but the President of the school, comprising students from the Independent Christian Churches, was thoroughly hospitable.
The Significance
Wednesday included a full day of speeches, discussions, and conversation between the two groups, ending with a speech by Reuel Lemmons, who received a standing ovation. This was quite puzzling because nothing he said seemed worthy of applause. (Of course, this is just an opinion.) All the day’s activities prompted me to sit down and try to evaluate the entire matter. There were many questions.
Why was this meeting being held? What was the motivation behind it? Who was the guiding force? What was to be gained by it? Was it a genuine attempt at unity? Or was it a sellout, an attempt to get us to compromise our principles? Was the Independent Christian Church willing to sacrifice the instrument for unity? Was a special mood being created by these discussions and if so, to what end? These questions and others had no answer at this time.
One thing was certain. Though love, unity, brotherhood, tolerance, and fellowship had been stressed repeatedly, absolutely nothing had been mentioned concerning false doctrine, false teachers, marking those who cause division, or withdrawing from those who go onward and abide not in the doctrine of Christ.
The point had been made that if we knew and understood one another better, we would appreciate and respect each other more. If we emphasized those many doctrines and tenets upon which we agree, there would be a more solid basis upon which to build unity. The problem with this approach is that when we split from each other originally, those conditions already existed. Brethren knew and understood each other and agreed on the bulk of New Testament doctrine. We separated regardless. No, knowl-edge of and love for each other cannot bring unity (16:63).
The Speeches
Some of the messages delivered were of interest (although Lemmons’ was not one of those), beginning with those given on the opening night.
On Tuesday evening Monroe Hawley gave an informative and accurate account of the history and current status of the churches of Christ. Boyce Mouton was supposed to have done likewise on behalf of the Independent Christian Churches. Although he presented a very entertaining and interesting lesson, he did not fulfill his assignment. On Thursday morning Lynn Gardner, Dean of Ozark Bible College, took some time to inform us on the matter. He was careful to show that their beliefs are totally opposite of those held by the Disciples of Christ on crucial issues. Whereas the conservative Christian churches hold to the same views we do on God, Christ, the Bible, man, and the church, the Disciples do not (16:43).
For those who may not be fully aware of history over the past 150 years, the division over the introduction of instrumental music began in earnest after the Civil War. By 1906, the division was official, but most of the damage had already been done. The churches of Christ continued without using instruments of music, and those who split off called themselves the Christian Church, although some did not change their name. Beginning around 1920 and continuing to the 1950s, an even more liberal element began to develop, culminating in another religious group, calling themselves the Disciples of Christ. Most of them went with the new name, but some continued to call themselves the Christian Church. At the “unity meeting” those of Ozark Bible College wanted to be certain that no one mistook them for the very liberal Disciples of Christ.
On Wednesday morning was a topic that promised to get at the root of the division: “Exegesis and Hermeneutics as They Relate to the Unity Question.” Exegesis refers to the proper means of getting out of the Scriptures only what they say. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures properly. Since two different views over the use of instrumental music exist, it would have been interesting to have heard both rationales. The presentation for “our” side went well, but the speech for the opposing view failed in its purpose.
Fred Thompson (not the actor) “said half a dozen things that were either confusing or questionable, so much so that others from the Christian Church shook their heads and declared that his views did not represent the majority of them” (16:43). After lunch “Hardeman Nichols delivered an outstanding speech on Bible authority.” He not only covered his own topic well but refuted every error made by Thompson in his speech before lunch. His presentation was both eloquent and pertinent; it was easily the highlight of the day.
The final speech of the afternoon by W. F. Lown was a bit on the surprising side since he took issue with two of the restoration pleas that most of us have always thought were Biblical. One of his recommendations was to change,
“Where the Bible speaks, we speak;
and where the Bible is silent, we are silent,”
to, “Where the Bible speaks, we ought to be silent;
And where the Bible is silent, we have liberty to speak.”
Anyone looking at those statements long enough will likely become very confused. Here is the intent of them. In the first one, we show respect for Bible authority. If the Bible teaches it, we teach it. Of course, many religious groups ignore a great portion of what the Bible says. Whereas the Bible condemns sin, for example, they do not. Even though God has defined a particular action as a sin, they say nothing. The same could be said of doctrinal matters. Like Paul, our goal ought to be “to declare the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). We do not teach any doctrine on our own authority. Whatever we do or teach must come from God (Col. 3:17). The second part of the first quotation likewise respects the silence of the Scriptures. If God did not teach it, we must be silent about teaching it, also.
What did Lown mean by reversing the two sayings? By the first part of it, he surely did not mean that we should not teach what the Bible does. He may have meant that we should not add to or take away anything from what the Scriptures have in them, which would be correct and in harmony with Biblical principles on this subject (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). One might well ask, however, “Why did he invert the two sayings? Does it clarify our thinking or merely confuse us?” We need clarity, not cleverness.
The second part of the switched-up statement is even more confusing. We suppose that what he was getting at was, “If the Bible does not teach on a particular issue, then we are at liberty to have an opinion concerning it.” All right, we might have an opinion, but we do not have the right to practice it without a, “Thus saith the Lord.” How this principle might be applied would be: “The Bible does not say, ‘Do not use instruments of music in worship’; therefore, my opinion is that it can be done.” Again, this opinion cannot authorize doing what the Bible does not teach.
This is the approach usually used by those defending the use of instruments of music. “The Bible doesn’t say not to use them.” No, it does not—any more than it says, “Don’t use incense in worship,” “Don’t genuflect,” “Don’t use pizza and Mountain Dew for the Lord’s Supper,” and, “Don’t dance in a Mosh Pit in worship to God.” All those things have been done. What is wrong with any of them? The Bible does not say, “Don’t do them.” But where does the Bible authorize them to be done? The Bible must teach that something is to be done before we can safely do it. More specifically, since we are under the New Testament, our authority must come from Jesus, His apostles, or His prophets. Lown was trying to be clever, but we cannot accept his new principle.
Another saying that brethren have long used is: “In matters of faith unity; in matters of opinion liberty; in all things charity.” He wanted to change that one to: ‘In all things love” (which is identical); “in essentials unity; and in non-essentials longsuffering.” What is the purpose for the change? It is not as poetic as the first one, and it muddies the water. Who gets to decide what is essential and non-essential? This approach may open the door to even more problems than what we currently have. If something is part of the faith, it is essential; if it is not part of the faith taught in the Scriptures, it is not essential. Having the authority of God for what we teach and what we practice is the Biblical position (Col. 3:17).
The Final Day
What had all these lectures and group meetings been leading up to? No principles had been enumerated that were acceptable to all present. True, there had been a spirit of good will, but could that by itself lead to unity? No one had a speech to make the final day. Instead, each of the ten discussion groups gave summaries of what they had accomplished. They presented suggestions that might lead to a greater unity between the two groups present. The program closed on a tearful note as two family members from the two different groups present prayed for unity and affirmed their love for each other. “Many who were present were moved deeply” (16:44); I was not.
The reason I lacked sympathy was not because certain things do not move me and arouse my emotions; the reason involved the fact that nothing had changed, and yet one would have thought that everyone had just seen The Passion of the Christ. Had anyone from “our” side admitted that our hermeneutics was all wrong? No. Had anyone from the other side admitted that the use of instruments of music were wrong and repented of their use? Such an idea had not even been whispered.
Then what was everyone so emotional about? The only thing that had occurred in those three days was that men from both sides had gotten to know each other better. However, the fact that I had gotten to know them personally did not change our relationship Scripturally. They were going to continue to use instruments of music in worship, and we were still going to insist that no New Testament authority for their use could be found. Where is the basis for unity in that? I was feeling so un-unified that I did not pose for the group picture.
When all is said and done, it still amounts to a few limited choices.
1) They give up the instrument, which is not authorized by the Scriptures.
2) We give up our objections to the instrument and at the same time all else that God has not authorized.
3) We agree to disagree—to have fellowship on occasion, to work together on some things, to exchange pulpits, articles, etc. There are two things (at least) wrong with this approach.
- a) It is tantamount to saying that more than one, indeed conflicting, views of reality exist. Such is false. If they could be, denominationalism might have a leg to stand on. And in fact, this view tends toward the acceptance of denominationalism.
- b) This course (if pursued) would eventually result in either total division again in the future or (which is more likely) a gradual compromise in which churches of Christ eventually accept the instrument. May it never be! (16:44).