I would say that the split over the instrumental issue 100 years ago is kind of like some of our issues today (like clapping, to pick a goofy issue), it is and was the surface issue but not the real issue. A deep underlying factor 100 years ago was the Civil War and the years following. Northern churches were flourishing in big cities like Cincinnati. They were building big buildings and were prosperous. Post Civil War southern churches were typically rural and in many cases impoverished. Initially, I don't think the instrumental issue was really that big of a deal. Lots of preachers would preach in churches that used instruments and in those that did not. They sought unity even in the midst of minor doctrinal issues. The bigger issue was Northern churches investing their money in organs and beautiful buildings while the southern churches suffered in post war poverty. Animosity developed and instruments became the issue. Also, guys like Lipscomb and Harding were pascifists. They urged brothers (North and South) not to go to war against each other. Additionally, they and the churches in the South which they influenced must have resented the American Christian Missionary Society adopting a resolution supporting the Union.

In the end, I think bad blood between the North and South was the bigger issue. All of this caused the churches in the South (predominately Churches of Christ) to make restoration of the primitive faith (doctrine) a bigger issue than unity (the other major goal of the Restoration Movement).

I'm there were other issues in addition to the war, but that's my two cents worth.

God bless,

John Magnuson

Throughout the years the claim has been made that the first major division in the American Restoration Movement was caused by the introduction of instrumental music in corporate worship. However, the introduction of instruments in worship was not the cause of the division, rather, it was a symptom of a deeper cause. Two intertwining matters paved the way for division: 1) differences in biblical interpretation, and 2) sectionalism that resulted from the Civil War.

There are some who doubt the sectionalism argument because there are exceptions on both sides of the Ohio River. There were some Northerners who took positions more in line with the most conservative elements of the Movement, while there were some Southerners who welcomed changes in practice and methodology. And then there were some whose inconsistency makes it impossible to pigeon-hole them on one side or the other.

However, the sectionalism argument is not only valid, it is still clearly seen today. In a recent issue of the Christian Chronicle, a graphic was displayed showing where the bulk of acappella Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches are located. Clearly, the Independent Christian Churches are stronger in the North (the biggest one, Southeast Christian Church with a weekend attendance of 20,000+, is located in Louisville, Kentucky, just south of Indiana ).

Where the sectionalism most played out was in the matter of biblical interpretation. Southerners were more likely to oppose any type of national organization (such as the American Christian Missionary Society). This is no surprise given the South's insistence on states' rights versus a national government making decisions for states.

The devastation caused by the Civil War also made the question of introducing instruments into corporate worship a moot point. Most congregations in the Movement were struggling just to survive. The period of Reconstruction in the South was an incredibly tough time in history for Southerners. They were focused on surviving, not on purchasing incidental items like organs or building large church buildings.

So sectionalism combined with biblical interpretation to create a predominant theology for the Southern congregations in the Movement, which for the most part, are known as acappella Churches of Christ. This explains why leaders such as David Lipscomb took the positions they did.

To simply state that those who wanted the instrument caused the division is to ignore the surrounding factors. Our culture has an impact on us and we cannot ignore cultural influences in our religious practices. Our religious ancestors in the American Restoration Movement were seduced by sectionalism, as is so vividly seen in the loyalty resolutions passed by the American Christian Missionary Society in 1861 and 1863.

For more information, you can get a copy of the book Torn Asunder: The Civil War and the 1906 Division of the Disciples. It is available from College Press (www.collegepress.com). Okay, I had to get a plug in there.

I agree with John that the sociological division in our nation at the time of the Civil War had a much bigger role than is normally recognized. Just to underscore what John wrote, consider that virtually every denomination (and we should be honest about how we function here) split during the war. Of course, they didn't split over the issue of slavery or of states' rights, at least not directly. But they split over, well, other things, whatever those "things" were. In our case, it was instruments that took the main attention. But I would contend that if it weren't that particular issue, it would have been something else. As an example to further illustrate John's point: Tennessee was divided in the time of the war, with eastern TN sympathizing with the union and the western part of the state joining the confederacy. Today, it is no coincidence that E TN is overwhelmingly influenced by independent Christian churches (including Johnson Bible College and Milligan College, two of the oldest and largest colleges among that fellowship), and W TN is equally dominated by non-instrumental churches of Christ, including several major universities.

In fact, we here in Cincinnati have a view of the musical split long before it became "official." Do you know of the Great Songbook Controversy of 1872? Campbell had always believed in "one (song)book for one people," and had bought out other leaders so that there was only one songbook for any Restoration Movement church. Then, in 1871 when the aging A. Campbell gave up rights to his songbook (Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs, later called The Christian Hymnbook), and the Missionary Union received royalties, it was strike one. When C. Fillmore published a competing songbook which contained not just hymns but mostly (evangelical) Gospel songs, and it was considerably cheaper (note John's comments about prosperity), it was strike two. When D. Lipscomb broke with the party line to support Fillmore's book, and the Christian Standard changed their position to do the same, it was strike three. At that point, though there were not three fellowships, the beginnings of the three were in place.

Let me elucidate on the number "three:" Fillmore was a Disciple who was a member of the wealthy Christian church in downtown Cincinnati which spent a lot of money on a building, complete with an organ. It drew much criticism from Nashville. And so we see the DoC/CoC split in the making. But Fillmore and the Christian Standard people were not following the complete aesthetic of the DoC, as they were also suspicious of the Missions Society and of "hymns only" (and not testimony-oriented Gospel songs) position of the DoC as a whole. And so, it took 30 more years to recognize how deep the rift was, and it took 20-50 more years beyond that to recognize that many of the independent Christian churches were not DoC, either. And so, today we have 3 very far removed fellowships who hold the same heritage but divided according to musical taste and conviction generations before.

Well, that's my lengthy take on it all, as a Christian church guy from Cincinnati. I'm interested in the view from the other side of this very sad division.

This discussion is fascinating! No telling how many people subscribe to the simple view that the restoration disagreement and resulting division was solely about the instrumental music issue. If we understand that the Civil War was a major factor in causing the split, surely we should re-examine our current beliefs with honest scrutiny. I truly feel sorry for Christians who have taken this unfortunate situation (handed down to us) and have translated it into a “salvation issue.” Very sad.

Thanks John, Ben and Ken for shedding more light on this issue.

How many people knew how the “hymnal controversy” affected the formation of three distinct religious groups? Just this week, Shane Coffman shared frustration about our multiple arrangements in gatherings like the Tulsa Workshop. For example, at Tulsa we will lead one song that has many different arrangements (Praise & Harmony, Free Indeed, Watershed, Zoe and Hallal) all mushed together.

Ben, thanks for sharing information on your recently released book, Torn Asunder, on this very topic. (available from College Press)