Views: 19<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The title of this MS implies certain things, among them, the following:<\/span><\/p>\n A Brief History of Previous Unity Movements<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Even before the ICC broke away from the Disciples of Christ denomination (1926-27) some attempts at unity were made. A program emphasizing unity was launched in 1914 by E. H. Koch, State Secretary of the Tennessee Christian Missionary Society (Waddey, art. no. 1, p. 3). \u201cThe Commission on Unity\u201d was formed in the early 1920s for the sake of addressing the instrument question, especially. Its means of doing so was to distribute O. E. Payne\u2019s book, which not only defended instrumental music in worship, but required it. John B. Cowden, one of the instigators, stated in a letter to The Gospel Advocate<\/em> (May 18, 1922) that they were proceeding \u201c\u2026on the hypothesis that there can be no unity until our divisive differences are settled, and settled right\u201d (Highers, 5[165]). After considerable effort, Cowden concluded:<\/span><\/p>\n They [churches of Christ] will have nothing to do with us but state openly and flatly that we are a separate and distinct people and occupy irreconcilable positions: and there is nothing left for us to do but fall in or fall out with them (Waddey, art. no. 1, p. 3).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This movement led to and was effectively terminated by the Hardeman-Boswell Debate on the instrument in 1923. A written debate on the same topic between H. Leo Boles and M.D. Clubb in 1926 also grew out of this effort. It is worth pointing out that, although the leaders of this movement sought to accomplish unity by convincing our brethren that use of the instrument was Scriptural, they at least understood and appropriately aimed at the principal cause of division.<\/span><\/p>\n In the 1930s a movement aimed at unity between the ICC and the churches of Christ was inaugurated by Claude F. Witty of the Westside-Central Church of Christ in Detroit, Michigan and James DeForest Murch, editor, preacher, and leader in the ICC. While more men were eventually involved in this project, it primarily involved the efforts of \u201c\u202650 men from each communion [who] braved the criticism of many of their brethren to make valuable contributions to the venture\u201d (Murch, 275). The first of several meetings with an equal representation of men from both groups was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, February 23, 1937. Several similar meetings followed in various places for several months.<\/span><\/p>\n These meetings led to a five-point \u201cApproach to Unity\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n The smaller, localized meetings also led to \u201cNational Unity Meetings,\u201d the first of which was hosted by the church where Witty preached in Detroit on May 3-4, 1938, with more than 1,000 in the audience. A second such meeting was conducted at the Englewood Christian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana in May 1939. It was at this second \u201cnational\u201d meeting that brother H. Leo Boles, editor of The Gospel Advocate, <\/em>was invited to speak. He delivered a \u201cblock-buster\u201d speech lasting one hour and thirty-one minutes in which he reminded those gathered that their fathers (Boles was the grandson of \u201cRaccoon\u201d John Smith) had all originally believed and practiced the same things until introduction of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 and the instrument about 10 years later. He charged that, as a further roadblock to unity, the ICC had plunged headlong into denominationalism. Specifically, he said:<\/span><\/p>\n You know where you left the churches of Christ; hence you know where to find them; come back and unity is the inevitable result. There will be no compromise or surrender on the point [i. e., opposition to denominationalism, DM]. The churches of Christ, as long as they are loyal to the New Testament, cannot compromise on this or any other point so clearly taught in the New Testament. You should not want any compromise on error; there will be no compromise. Do you now see the way to unity?\u2026 It is a sin to follow ordinances, or services, based on the precepts and doctrines, opinions, and teachings of men (Col. 2:20-23). It is not only wrong to bring such things into the worship of God; it is wrong to tolerate them in the worship; it is wrong to affiliate with them or countenance those who bring them in. Hence, it is sinful to bring anything not commanded by God into the worship of God\u2026 (Boles, 16, 30\u201331).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since the ICC people were not willing to give up their cherished idols so well-described by brother Boles, his speech had the effect of so cooling the effort as to practically end it. The Murch-Witty crusade not only produced \u201cunity\u201d meetings, but it also spawned a journal, Christian Unity Quarterly<\/em>, jointly edited by Murch and Witty. As a further fallout, an<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026 independence of friendly thought and action developed among young ministers of both communions. Lines were crossed in occasional exchanges of pulpits, and lecturers from one group were invited to speak in colleges and seminaries of the other (Murch, 276).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In 1950 Ernest Beam, a California preacher, began The Christian Forum<\/em>, a paper designed to promote unity. He preached for and worked with liberal churches that had no qualms about such innovations as the instrument and the missionary society until his death in the late 1950s. He met stiff and effective opposition from men like Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and G. C. Brewer.<\/span><\/p>\n Also, during the 1950s, W. Carl Ketcherside of St. Louis, Missouri (a rabid extremist in opposition to such things as located preachers, orphan homes, and \u201cChristian\u201d colleges) was adamantly pushing his views in public debates (e.g., Wallace-Ketcherside Debate, 1953) and in his paper, The Mission Messenger<\/em>. \u00a0His soulmate in these matters was Leroy Garrett, editor of a monthly paper called Bible Talk<\/em>. However, during the 1960s Ketcherside swung to the opposite extreme and began to champion what he calls \u201cunity in diversity\u201d or \u201cfellowship without endorsement.\u201d Garrett swung with him, and began The Restoration Review,<\/em> whose sole purpose seems to have been to undermine and destroy the distinctiveness of the Lord\u2019s church.<\/span><\/p>\n Their program promotes fellowship with all who have obeyed the \u201cGospel,\u201d regardless of their doctrinal beliefs or practices. In the Ketcherside program, \u201cdoctrine\u201d is distinct from \u201cGospel\u201d and has nothing to do with fellowship. Such matters as instrumental music in worship, premillennialism, the missionary society, speaking in tongues, observance of the Lord\u2019s supper on Thursday night, or women preachers have no bearing on fellowship whatsoever (Woodson articles). While the views of these men have been generously praised by ICC men, our brethren generally (and correctly so) rejected them. However, the evil trio of toleration, antinomianism, and liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s in society found its way into the church. This has produced a new generation in the 1980s, principally led by certain young preachers, that is basically contending for the Ketcherside\/Garrett approach. Many have been caught up in it.<\/span><\/p>\n The Current Movement\u2014Its History<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n While it is difficult to pinpoint the precise beginning of any historical movement, it appears to me that Rubel Shelly deserves the \u201ccredit\u201d for getting the current \u201cunity\u201d movement underway with a series of sermons on \u201cUndenominational Christianity,\u201d delivered from the pulpit of the Ashwood Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee, in late 1982. This was followed by a speech at an annual \u201cpreachers\u2019 forum\u201d near Centerville, Tennessee, on March 21, 1983. He spoke on, \u201cIs Unity Possible?\u201d\u2014purportedly, a summary statement of the sermon series previously delivered at Ashwood. This speech (although polished and \u201ctoned down\u201d in some respects) was published in tract form later in the year under the title, Christians Only.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Much of Shelly\u2019s Centerville speech was a harangue against what he perceived to be a \u201csectarian spirit\u201d among his brethren (a spirit which he once had, but now had \u201crepented\u201d of). He spent considerable time applying Mark 9:38-41:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, \u201cForbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ’s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He also compared the sad spiritual condition of the Corinthian church to our time, alleging that Christ and Paul were pleased to extend fellowship to those in error and so ought we. He affirmed, \u201cThere are sincere, knowledgeable, devout Christians scattered among all the various denominations\u201d (Shelly, Centerville, TN, tape transcript).<\/span><\/p>\n It was especially surprising and shocking to hear such statements from a man who, even though young, had already distinguished himself as an outspoken and capable advocate of the very things against which he was now bitterly lashing out. These speeches spawned a significant number of articles from sound brethren in various papers, all of which voiced concern over Shelly\u2019s errors and their deadly consequences if accepted.<\/span><\/p>\n Shelly\u2019s sermons and tract advocated tolerance and recognition of and fellowship with people who are not in the church of Christ (a la Ketcherside\/Garrett), but they never got around to telling us his \u201chermeneutical program\u201d by which this could be done. He did not wait long to tell us. In a speech in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1984, he revealed his \u201cprogram\u201d\u2014divide fellowship <\/em>into two levels. Shelly extends only Fellowship (spelled with upper-case \u201cF\u201d) tofolks whom he believes have \u201cobeyed the Gospel\u201d (such as a preacher-friend of his in the ICC). However, he has both Fellowship (upper-case \u201cF\u201d) and fellowship (lower-case \u201cf\u201d) with those who have \u201cobeyed the Gospel\u201d and who agree with him \u201cdoctrinally.\u201d Elsewhere he has called this his \u201cdoctrine of limited fellowship\u201d (Shelly, Hillsboro, OH, tape transcript).<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, while he does not have fellowship with his ICC friend in his use of the instrument, he has Fellowship with him in the \u201cGospel.\u201d The same dictum applies to the question of the premillennialism, orphan homes, and other doctrinal matters. Of course, Shelly reserves for himself <\/strong>the right to determine the bases of extending Fellowship, based on his own definition of the seven \u201cones\u201d of Ephesians 4:4\u20136 (see McClish, \u201cThe \u2018One Faith\u2019 of Ephesians 4:5\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n Shelly\u2019s new-found convictions (although he ridiculously continues to deny he has changed, except in \u201cattitude\u201d) quickly became the rallying point for those who were already making some gestures toward the ICC. Alan Cloyd, director of \u201cRestoration Leadership Ministry,\u201d sponsored by the Vultee church in Nashville, Tennessee, and Don DeWelt of the ICC collaborated on what they styled a \u201cRestoration Summit\u201d on August 7\u20139, 1984, in Joplin, Missouri. Participation was \u201cby invitation only,\u201d with only 50 men from each group invited.<\/span><\/p>\n Of the 50 \u201cSummiteers\u201d from our brotherhood only 5 or 6 of them were men of unquestioned soundness. Most of those present were men whose sounds of softness and compromise were well known, including Rubel Shelly. The tone of this meeting is typified by the fact that Cloyd, as director of the \u201cSummit,\u201d would not allow the Boles speech of 1939 to be distributed, but a packet of compromising documents on \u201cfellowship,\u201d most written by Ketcherside, was put together by DeWelt for each participant and distributed freely with Cloyd\u2019s approval.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cRestoration Summit\u201d raised grave concerns among faithful brethren for several reasons, among them the following:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n